HC Deb 26 June 1873 vol 216 cc1423-45

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 14 (Application of Act to Metropolis, 32 and 33 Vict. c. 67.), agreed to.

Clause 15 (Definition of Occupier.)

MR. PELL

moved, in page 5, line 26, to leave out all after "The," to the end of sub-section 1, and to insert— occupier of any land shall, for the purposes of this Act, be taken to be the person entitled to the exercise of any right of fowling, shooting, sporting, or fishing on such land, although such right be severed from the occupation or ownership of the soil. If this Amendment were adopted excessive disputes and excessive references to the assessment committee would be avoided.

MR. LOPES

said, that as the Bill stood this would he the first time that the right of shooting severed from the land was to be rated, and it would cover the case of a landlord who reserved the right of shooting, but who did not exercise that right or preserve game.

MR. STANSFELD

said, there was no doubt something in the criticism which the hon. Gentleman had just offered; but, practically speaking, the valuation which an assessment committee would put upon the right of sporting over an estate which was not exercised, and where there was no preserving, would be very nearly nominal. But if there was a right which was capable of being exercised, and was becoming of value some value must be attached to it, though it would probably be the minimum. The Amendment before the Committee had not met with much discussion, and he should content himself with referring to a subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which appeared to raise a question well worth the attentive consideration of the Committee—namely, what person should be rated with reference to the enjoyment of the right of sporting. As far as he was concerned, he had gone on this line of argument—that the occupation of the land and the enjoyment of the right of sporting were not, as a matter of fact, commonly in the same hands. Those who enjoyed the right of sporting were not necessarily the occupiers of the land. If the owner occupied the land, he probably reserved the right of sporting; but there was no difficulty in that case, because the ownership, the occupation, and the right of sporting were all in the same hands. But suppose the owner of an estate had divided it into 20 different farms, occupied by 20 different tenants, but retained the right of sporting over it, or let the right to another person, his proposal was that in either case the owner should be rated. This proposal was founded on a principle of convenience, because the right of sporting might be let to one person or to a great number of persons. The hon. Member (Mr. Pell) proposed to rate the occupying tenant for the right of sport as if he enjoyed it on his own farm; but he thought the Committee would require more argument than they had yet heard to induce them to adopt that proposal, for it would place on one class of the community a liability they ought not to bear. His proposal, on the other hand, was that liability to pay rates in respect of the right of sport should fall on those who possessed and enjoyed that right, and it was only when it was let that the proprietor would, as a matter of convenience, be rated.

MR. CLARE READ

observed that the moment they got away from the simplicity of rating hereditaments and proposed to rate the right of "sport" and all sorts of rights they would get into confusion. Game was a product, and they did not rate products. Even in the case of underwood, they rated, not the underwood, but the land on which it was grown. His proposal was to apply that rule everywhere. Game of all products was the most likely to vary, not only with the seasons, but with the caprices of the owner; but whether the land grew corn, sheep, or hares, he would have but one simple assessment. The difficulties of assessing "rights" would be innumerable. It would be almost impossible for the overseer to collect the rate. He might not know where the game tenant lived, and he could not distrain his hares and rabbits. he hoped the Committee would adopt his simple proposal.

MR. CORRANCE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had created a monster. The "owner" was actually made "occupier" in order to carry out this proposal.

MR. DODSON,

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would adopt the excellent suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which seemed to be the only one that would meet the difficulty. By the law of England game belonged to the occupier, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk would allow the assessment to proceed in every case on the supposition that the law was to be carried out in practice. The assessment committee would have only one person to deal with, and the value of the game would have to be settled as between the landlord and the tenant. In cases where there was very little game on the land, and where the owner reserved the right of sporting —and this was the ease in many counties of England—it was absurd to put a rate-able value on the reserved right and levy a separate rate.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he was glad these Amendments had been suggested on behalf of the tenant farmers by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read) and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). Everyone must know it was in the interest of the whole community that one person should be responsible for the payment of rates. This was the most simple and straightforward way of doing the business, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

MR. MUNTZ

agreed that the only practical way was to rate the occupier. If the owner were rated would they distrain upon the tenant because the owner had not paid? Again, if the shooting were let to a third person, how could they enforce the rate against him? Would they distrain upon another man's land for Ids default? Further, there were millions of acres in England which were not preserved, and on them any rate upon the shooting could only be nominal in amount.

MR. PELL

said, it appeared to him that it would be utterly impossible for any assessment committee to apply the usual rule to hereditaments of so new and extraordinary a nature as those comprised under the name of game. It would be very difficult to arrive at a rateable value.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he thought it was a great mistake to cut up the land into these small allotments. Supposing a tenant had a farm of 20 acres and was rated for game, of course he could only be rated for those 20 acres, which would not be of much use to any person for sporting purposes. It seemed to him there was as much difficulty in rating the occupier as in rating the person who had the right of sporting.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the Committee had already passed a clause enacting that these incorporeal hereditaments should be rated when severed from the occupation of the soil. It was therefore of no use to go back to the earlier part of the Bill, and say it was inconvenient that one matter was to be subjected to two rates. The question arose as to who was to be rated—whether the person who was, in the ordinary sense, the owner of the land, or the person who was the tenant? He admitted that there might, in particular cases, be some difficulty in getting at either the owner or the occupier for the purposes of rating; but that was not a difficulty of the law, but of the application of the law. What the Committee had endeavoured to do was to settle what should be done by the local authorities in all cases of rating. The proposition of the Government had, at least, this convenience—that it did not enact an absolute rule, but said that the occupier or the owner might, according to the view of the assessment committee, be rated, leaving it to the assessment committee to settle each case according to its merits, and to rate the occupier or the owner, as appeared most convenient. It would have been impossible for the Government to have laid down a strict rule, which might, in many cases, be at variance with the facts.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that according to the wording of the clause to which the Attorney General alluded, the man who had the right of sporting was the person to be rated, and not the occupier. It seemed to him that that was an imperative clause, and not an optional one; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman now said the assessment committees were to choose between the tenant of the land and the person who had the right of shooting over it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the proposition of the Government, as amended, was that the right might be either in the hands of the owner or of somebody who let it, and that the assessment committees would deal with each case as convenience dictated.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

objected to the rating of game altogether, and he did not think that the matter was one that should be left in the hands of the assessment committee, who, in order to assess the rate fairly, would have to enter into laborious calculations as to the precise value of the game on every person's land. It would be better to require the occupier rather than the landlord to pay the rate.

MR. PEASE

said, the whole of the counties in England were not like the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, which abounded in game, and therefore could not bear to be rated in the same way as those two counties. In many districts in the North of England the game was worth little or nothing, and yet for that they had all degrees of preservation. If they began to rate for game in those districts, they would put it upon the assessment committee to find out that which it was almost impossible to discover.

MR. CLARE READ

explained that it was on behalf of those counties where little game existed that he was anxious to carry his Amendment.

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM

objected to the rating of game as involving a double rate upon the land. It was quite a new principle to rate game if the owner let the shooting, but not to rate it if he kept the shooting for himself.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

wished to know, in the case of a gentleman giving away the fishing on a river on his estate, who would be required to pay the rate in respect of it?

MR. LOPES

felt that there would be this difficulty in adopting the proposed Amendments—that the land would be rateable for no more than it was now, whilst the Bill declared that rating should be extended. Rating at present applied to the whole value of the land. Subject to this difficulty he agreed in the proposed Amendments.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

pointed out that moors in such counties as Derby and York, in the neighbourhood of large towns, let at a higher figure for shooting than for pasture, and said the difficulty he felt was that under the Amendment the tenant would not be rated more highly for the moor when it was let for shooting than if it were let for pasture. On the whole, he thought it would be better to take the words of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) and leave the responsibility with the Government. It could hardly be expected that in the first year of rating these incorporeal hereditaments everything would go quite straight.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he was not disposed to leave the responsibility with the Government. He objected to sending the Bill to the country to be worked by assessment committees, while the House of Commons was itself unable to say absolutely what was the meaning of the clause. In his opinion, the rateability ought to be one and undivided, as was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.

MR. CLARE READ

said, that in the event of the land being let for shooting as well as for pasturage, he would let the assessment committee assess at the joint value; for instance, supposing it were let for 1s. 6d. an acre for pasturage and 1s. an acre for shooting, he would have it assessed at half-a-crown.

MR. HENLEY

said, the advice of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) was very sound. He (Mr. Henley) put the case of a man refusing to pay the game assessment and inquired how the rate collector was to distrain. Was he to chase the hares as if they were so many Welsh sheep and impound them? This might, he considered, be a convenient way of making faggot votes, for all that an extensive landed proprietor had to do was to apportion out his shooting and sporting rights in sections of £15 each, when each of these tenants would as a matter of course come upon the Parliamentary register. He was afraid that if they passed the clause as it stood inconveniences would arise out of it which they by no means expected. He would suppose a man rated at 3d. in the pound for £5 valuation to be paid quarterly. How could they expect a rate-collector to waste his time in making those collections? The proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Poll) was a simple one, and he thought our forefathers were very wise in saying that the man who occupied the land must pay the burden upon it.

MR. HINDE PALMER

suggested that for the purpose of any poor rate the occupier of land should be the person rated in respect of any right of shooting, fishing, &c., but that such rating should not prejudice or interfere with any arrangement made between the landlord and tenant when such right was enjoyed separately from the occupation.

MR. DODSON

said, he did not see any inconsistency in adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which he thought was the simplest way of meeting the difficulty. As to the moors of which the value for shooting was greater than for pasture, that was an exceptional case. The clause must be framed to meet ordinary cases, and the proposal of the hon. Member for South Norfolk seemed the best calculated to secure that purpose.

MR. HUNT

submitted that in the case of a common where the lord of the manor enjoyed both the right of sporting and the right of the soil he should be held to be the occupier under this Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that in deference to the general feeling which appeared to prevail in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), he was prepared to accept that Amendment. He would also accept the Proviso of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), if it were slightly amended, by leaving out the words "for the purposes of this Act," and, at the end, the words "or ownership."

MR. BRAND

suggested another difficulty. In the event of one man being the lord of the manor and another the owner of the soil, which of them would be rated for the game?

MR. STANSFELD

said, he would consider whether some words might not be introduced with the view of meeting cases of that kind.

Amendment (Mr. Pell) amended and agreed to.

MR. CLARE READ

moved to add at the end of the clause the following— Provided, That the gross value of any land let or occupied by the owner for agricultural purposes shall be the full rent at which the land, irrespective of any reservation of game and timber, might reasonably be expected to let one year with another, free of all tenants' rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent charge if any. Provided always, That when any tenant shall pay any increase of rate by any such assessment of game or timber on any land which he may occupy under any lease or agreement at the time of the passing of this Act, he shall be entitled dining the currency or continuance of such lease or agreement to deduct from any rent he may pay for such land the amount of the increase of such rate from such rent, and the amount of such increase shall be fixed and determined by the assessment committee of the union in which the land is situate.

MR. STANSFELD

suggested that the second Proviso should be withdrawn, as his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Read) would see at a moment's reflection that the amount of increase in the rates could not be settled beforehand.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the Amendment as it now stood would throw on the assessment committee the duty of arbitrating between landlord and tenant, which was something very different from what they were bound to undertake.

MR. CLARE READ

said, suppose a man was now assessed at 30s. an acre, and the assessment committee raised the assessment for the future to 31s., what he wished was that the committee should have the power to say that the additional shilling was put on for the purpose of assessing the game.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Definitions, 32 & 33 Vict. c. 67.) agreed to.

Clause 17 (Commencement of Act).

MR. LIDDELL

observed that the clause referred to the "Valuation Act, 1873," and would require to be altered in the event, which he considered very probable, of the Valuation Bill not passing during the present Session.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he did not at all despair of the Bill in question becoming law this Session. If, however, he saw reason hereafter for being less sanguine than he was on the subject, he would propose an alteration of the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Saving as to mine where dues payable in kind).

MR. PEASE

moved to add at the end of the clause the words— and no mine shall be rated under this Act until a portion of the produce thereof shall have been conveyed away from it for the purposes of sale or manufacture. The object of this Amendment was to protect those parties who were searching for minerals, and who might produce small quantities and lay them on the surface, and then have to abandon the work because of its not being likely to be remunerative.

MR. STANSFELD

objected to the Amendment, observing that one might just as well propose that no farm should be rated until the tenant had reaped his first crop.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 (Saving clause) agreed to.

MR. STANSFELD

moved, after Clause 7, to insert new Clause.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clauses:—

"(Application of Act to Scotland.)

"This part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following provisions:—

"1. The expression 'hereditaments,' shall have the meaning assigned to the expression lands and heritages,' in the Act of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled 'An Act for the Valuation of Lands and Heritages in Scotland, and hereinafter called The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act:'

"The expression 'local rate,' shall mean any county, municipal, parochial, or other local rate or assessment:

"The expression 'valuation list,' shall mean the valuation roll in force for the time made up under The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act, and any Acts amending the same:

"The expression 'Assessment Committee,' shall, with regard to any assessment, mean the authority empowered by law to impose such assessment:

"The expression 'umpire' shall include oversman.

"2. In Scotland the provisions of this part of of this Act with respect to arbitration shall be read and construed as if sections twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-three, and thirty-four of The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845,' were substituted for the corresponding sections of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. 1845.'

"3. Nothing in this part of this Act shall be construed to prevent the Treasury from recovering from the owner of any lands and heritages in Scotland, or retaining out of the rent, in like manner as any other tenant or occupant, any share of any local rate chargeable on such owner.

"(Application of Act to Ireland.)

"This part of this Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the provisions following:—

  1. "1. The expression 'Assessment Committee,' shall mean, in relation to each poor law union, the board of guardians of the poor of such union;
  2. "2. The expression 'valuation list' shall in relation to each Poor Law Union mean the list or lists of the valuation of rateable hereditaments and tenements, and of any revision of the same transmitted to the clerk of the board of guardians of such union under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland;
  3. "3. The expression 'local rate' shall mean and include grand jury cess, city, town, or borough rate, and any local rate or tax leviable under any public general Act or under any local and personal Act;
  4. "4. The costs of and incident to an arbitration and award shall, if either party so requires, be taxed and settled by the principal taxing officer in common law business in Ireland, and not in the manner prescribed by section one of The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1860.'
  5. "5. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the Treasury from deducting from any rent payable in respect of any hereditament in like manner as any other occupier paying rent, any share of any poor or other local rate;
  6. "6. In any scheme or valuation list the rateable value only of Government hereditaments shall be stated."

MR. BRUEN

moved, as an Amendment to Mr. Stansfeld's proposed new Clause, "Application of Act to Ireland," line 1, before "This part of," to insert "Clause 6," and before sub-section 1, to insert— 1. The expression Poor Rate Act shall mean and include the Act for the more effectual relief of the destitute Poor in Ireland, 1838,' and the Acts amending the same.

MR. HIBBERT

assured the hon. Gentleman that Government property in Ireland could not be exempted from taxation, when the present Bill abolished such exemptions in England. Separate Bills would be introduced for Scotland and Ireland, and every exertion made to pass them during the Session. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

MR. VANCE

wished to know whether the Bill repealing the exemptions in Ireland would be introduced and carried during the present Session?

MR. STANSFELD

said, he was afraid it would not be possible to carry a Bill through this Session; but Bills were being prepared which would give Ireland and Scotland the benefit of the same exemptions as England.

MR. BRUEN

said, that after the assurance given by the right hon. Gen- tleman he should withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

moved, before Clause 12, to insert—

"Part III.

"(Liability of property to local rates as well as poor rates.)

"After the commencement of this Act, the hereditaments to which the Poor Rate Acts are extended by this Act, and which are thus made rateable to the relief of the poor shall be rateable to all county rate, borough rate, highway rate, and other local rates which are leviable upon property rateable to the relief of the poor, in like manner as if the Poor Rate Acts had always extended to such hereditaments."

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—

"(Gross and rateable value of tin and copper mines.)

"Where a tin or copper mine is occupied under a lease or leases granted without fine on a reservation wholly or partly of money dues, or rent, the gross annual value of the mine shall be taken to be the annual amount of the whole of the dues payable in respect thereof during the year ending on the sixth day of April preceding the date at which the valuation list is made, in addition to the annual amount of any fixed rent reserved for the same which may not be paid or satisfied by such dues.

"The rateable annual value of such mine shall be the same as the gross annual value thereof, except that where the dues or rent are liable for repairs, insurance, or other expenses necessary to maintain the mine in a state to command such annual amount of dues or rent, the probable average annual cost of such repairs, insurance, and other expenses shall be deducted from the gross value, for the purpose of calculating the rateable value.

"In the following cases, namely—

"1. Where any such mine is occupied under a lease granted wholly or partly on a fine; and

"2. Where any such mine is occupied by the owner;

"and in all cases to which the foregoing provisions of this section do not apply, the gross and rateable annual value of the mine shall be taken to be the annual amount of the dues or dues and rent at which the mine might be reasonably expected to let without fine on a lease of the ordinary duration, according to the usage of the country, if the tenant undertook to pay all tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe rent-charge, and also the repairs, insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain the mine in a state to command such annual amount of dues or dues and rent.

"The purser, secretary, and chief managing agent for the time being of any tin or copper mine, or any of them, may, if the overseers or other rating authority think fit, be rated as the occupier thereof.

"In this section—

"The term 'mine' includes the underground workings and the engines, machinery, workshops, tramways, and other plant, buildings (not being dwelling houses), and works and surface of land occupied in connection with and for the purposes of the undertaking, and comprised in the lease or leases under which the dues or dues and rent arc payable or reserved;

"The term 'dues' means dues, royalty, or toll, whether in money or partly in money and partly in kind, and the amount of dues which are reserved in kind means the value of such dues;

"The term 'lease' means lease or sett, or licence to work, or agreement for a lease or sett, or licence to work;

"The term 'fine' means fine, premium, or foregift, or other payment or consideration in the nature thereof."

MR. LIDDELL

moved to add the words "or lead" after the word "copper."

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

suggested that the words "or zinc" should also be added.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that he had accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Cornwall with regard to tin and copper mines, because that hon. Member had in his opinion made out a good case for rating those mines in the manner proposed by the clause he was asking the Committee to assent to. But as to the extension of this Bill to lead mines he was satisfied there was a difference of opinion both in the House and in the country, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northumberland.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAY

moved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 17:— Nothing in this Act or in the said recited Act of the forty-third year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth shall be deemed to render any person or persons or body corporate liable to be assessed or rated, either as owner or occupier, to any county, borough, parochial, or other local rates or cesses, in respect of any land, houses, or buildings, or parts of houses or buildings, in the United Kingdom, which shall be used exclusively as a hospital or infirmary for the relief of the sick poor, or for the transaction of the business relating to such hospital or infirmary, and shall yield no pecuniary profit to the governors, trustees, or other administrators of the charity aforesaid. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that charitable institutions had been virtually exempted from rating from the passing of the Act of Elizabeth until a recent decision in the House of Lords. In former discussions much stress had been laid on the fact that Chief Justice Holt had in the reign of Queen Anne decided adversely to charities; but this case was of no authority. The report of it occupied four lines only of print, and from the report itself it was evident that some artifice had been resorted to to escape from rating. But however this might be, it was clear that the Legislature, by whom the Act of Elizabeth was passed, contemplated the exemption of charities, for by one of the sections of that Act, a portion of the rates raised under it, were to be appropriated towards the support of hospitals for the relief of the poor. This view was adopted by Lord Mansfield in the cases of St. Luke's and St. Bartholomew's Hospitals, in the middle of the last century, and was thenceforth continuously acted upon. The principles, however, upon which Lord Mansfield's decisions were founded were carried beyond their legitimate consequences, and, in process of time, claims for exemption were made and allowed in the cases of land devoted to public purposes generally. This view was rejected by Lord Westbury in the case of the Mersey Docks Company, on grounds which were subsequently held by the Court of Queen's Bench to be equally applicable to charities. If this modern construction of the statute of Elizabeth was to be accepted as a true exposition of the law as at present existing, it was time that some sufficient steps should be taken to secure a recognition of the older construction, which had prevailed for upwards of 200 years, for public policy, and to a great extent public opinion was in favour of the exemption. The poor were the parties chiefly concerned, it was the poor who would suffer if the claim was rejected. He might refer by way of illustration to the case of St. Thomas's Hospital. It appeared from a Petition which he had presented from that hospital, that if the clause were not adopted they would have to contribute a sum of £3,000 a-year in the shape of taxation. The practical result would be the closing of no fewer than 140 beds out of 600. Now, of the 4,000 in-patients in the year, more than one-third came from the parish of Lambeth, and so also did more than one-half of the total number of out-patients. The parish, therefore, would have had to pay, but for the existence of the hospital, more for the relief of its sick poor than it would gain by the rating in question. If the principle of the Bill had been to impose liability to rating on property of all kinds he would have felt difficulty in pressing his Amendment; but the principle of exemption had been accepted by the Committee in the case of ragged and Sunday schools, and he hoped it would be extended to the case of hospitals and infirmaries.

New Clause (Saving in favour of hospitals for the sick poor,)—(Sir Richard Baggallay,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

opposed the clause. He regretted to hear the account his hon. and learned Friend had given of St. Thomas's Hospital, and hoped that he (Sir. Richard Baggallay) was right in saying that the proportion of patients he had referred to belonged to the poor of Lambeth, and not to a class who could afford to pay for medical aid. He could not think the Committee would be induced to change the resolution which they had arrived at on the question as to literary and scientific institutions by now introducing a number of exemptions which had not hitherto existed. It must be remembered that in that case an exemption was expunged; whereas now the proposition was to insert an exemption which did not obtain even under the present law. The principle of the Bill was to abolish exemptions, which meant that no person had a right to compel his neighbour in a given parish to subscribe to any charity he thought fit against the will of his neighbours in such parish. If instead of a large parish like Lambeth they took the case of a small parish in which a great hospital was built, extending over one-third or one-fourth of its entire space, on which rateable property would otherwise be erected, would they allow the governors, who at their own will selected the site, to compel the remainder of the occupiers of property in the parish to pay out of their own pockets an enormous contribution towards the maintenance of the hospital? That was virtually what they were asked to do. Suppose a railway came in and took possession of the site of a hospital, and the hospital was transferred to a new parish, was that parish to be taxed for its support? As regarded the exemption of the ragged schools, the Government objected to that exemption on principle, but had deferred to the majority by which the House expressed its opinion on a former occasion in favour of maintaining that particular exemption. That exemption, however, was of a totally different kind from the one before them, being entirely at the option of the parish. These hospitals for the sick were charities now maintained by voluntary contributions; but if the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was accepted they would be maintained by involuntary contributions, and the parish of Lambeth, for example, would be taxed for St. Thomas's Hospital to the amount of £3,000 a-year. But we could not possibly tax people for the maintenance of an institution over the government and expenditure of which they had no control whatever. He hoped the Committee would not be led away by feelings of benevolence, which were so easily indulged at the expense of other people, to accept the clause.

MR. LIDDELL

said, he thought the able legal argument of the Solicitor General cut both ways, and cut very strongly against himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the case of a small parish in which a body of benevolent persons might erect a hospital, and said that if you exempted the establishment it would be at the expense of the inhabitants; but supposing those benevolent persons took off the streets of that parish a large number of sick poor who were previously chargeable upon its rates, surely in that case the existence of the hospital would relieve the ratepayers. He should certainly support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Richard Baggallay.)

MR. RYLANDS

asked if they were to indulge in feelings of benevolence in the case of hospitals where were they to stop? There were many of these institutions supported by a few benevolent persons while the bulk of the people rendered no assistance. But if the Committee decided that the public should pay, they must give them control over the management.

MR. CAWLEY

contended that the argument of the Solicitor General was founded upon an entire fallacy. Hospitals were not property in the same sense as those establishments which yielded a benefit to an individual occupier. It was therefore begging the question to say that if they did not rate them they would be imposing a tax upon the rest of the community. This was not a Bill to extend the area of rating, but to alter the law in respect to it. Where an order to clear the site for the building of a hospital, property which had been contributing to the local Exchequer was removed, the hospital which took its place ought to contribute to the rates; but otherwise those institutions ought to be exempted from local taxation. For these reasons he would support the clause.

MR. LEEMAN

agreed with the Solicitor General. In York there was a large hospital which received patients from all parts of the country. It was situated in one small parish, and property having been cleared for its erection which formerly contributed to the rates he did not see on what ground of justice it could be exempted from rates. There was a second large hospital in another small parish of the same city, as to which the circumstances were precisely the same. Li fairness to the ratepayers they ought both to be rated. In the case of the ragged schools there was simply power given to the parish to exempt from rating, whilst in the instance now under consideration an absolute exemption was asked for.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, that the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) were altogether exceptional. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) thought hospitals deserved all the support which could be given to them. They were essential to the benefit of the country, and he should vote for the clause of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. CANDLISH

said, the question was whether hospitals were entitled to a forced support levied upon the poor by means of removing the rates of the establishment to other persons' shoulders. He did not think that an exemption coupled with such consequences should find support in the Committee; and he hoped that the Government would resist the Amendment. The exemption in favour of Sunday and ragged schools was one for which the people and not the House were responsible.

Mr. BIRLEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) would rate the Pyramids of Egypt if they were in this country; or, perhaps, if it were brought under his notice, he would rate the Duke of York's column. He (Mr. Birley) saw no beneficial occupation in a hospital which could bring it within the area of taxation according to the statute of Elizabeth. If a hospital was unable to pay the rates, was a collector to distress upon the beds of the patients or the bottles of the dispensary? All the great jurists had held that hospitals were exempt, and until the decision of the House of Lords in the Mersey Docks case, hospitals had been established upon that understanding. Hospitals should not be rated until it was shown that such establishments contributed to produce burdens upon the poor rates.

MR. GILPIN

supported the clause, and said that though a hospital did not directly tend to increase the poor rate it certainly maintained within its walls many persons who would otherwise have been chargeable upon their own parishes. It was hard that the parish in which a hospital stood should be burdened for the benefit of other parishes.

MR. SCOURFIELD

observed that this was simply a proposition to continue an old exemption, not to create a new one, and he should vote for the exemption.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the argument that hospitals should be exempt because they were useful public institutions was open to considerable objection, because there was a great variety of hospitals, and some were well and some badly managed. But admitting the general proposition, if they took land for a hospital which otherwise would pay rates and exempted it, they clearly made a deduction from the rateable value of a parish and enforced a contribution to the hospital of that amount. It was also impossible to prove that a hospital for the sick poor in any degree relieved a parish from a portion of the rates or of the cost of maintaining its poor. The tendency might even be in the other direction. A hospital or other charitable institution planted in a given locality attracted to that locality poor persons who, sooner or later, expected to benefit from it. Did anyone suppose that the establishment of St. Thomas's Hospital on the other side of the river did not attract a poor population to the neighbourhood? Permissive exemption had existed ever since the Act of 14 & 15 Vict. It was then enacted that— The guardians of any union or parish may, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, pay out of any fund of such union, or in the case of the parish out of the fund in the hands of such guardians, any sum of money as an annual subscription towards the support and maintenance of any public hospital or infirmary for the reception of sick or disabled persons or persons suffering from any permanent or natural infirmity.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman must have very much amused the Committee, because he gravely stated that wherever hospitals were built paupers would come to live near them. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have argued that wherever you constructed a cemetery people would come to live near it for the purpose of dying. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the existence of a permissive provision enabling the local authorities to contribute towards the exemption of hospitals from rating; but it was a matter entirely at the discretion of the Poor Law Board, which always refused its assent when applications of that kind came before it. [Mr. STANSFELD said, the hon. Member was mistaken.] He (Mr. Muntz) contended that it was absurd to exempt places of religious worship from the rate, and fix it on hospitals. What was religious worship to one was gross idolatry or heresy to another, and the most pestilential doctrines of Mormonism or any other "ism" might be preached, and the preachers charged what they liked at the doors, and yet they were to be exempted; while the hospitals, which were founded entirely on Christian principles, were to be taxed. He maintained that the popular feeling was decidedly in favour of the exemption of hospitals from rating, and would on that assertion challenge any Member in public meeting in any town in England. The Act of Elizabeth never intended to charge poor rates upon charitable institutions; and feeling, as he did, very strongly upon it, he should support the exemption clause.

MR. MACFIE

supported the Amendment, believing that the rating of hos- pitals would have the effect of restraining the contributions of the rich towards their support.

MR. CAWLEY

asked in whom the beneficial occupation of a hospital rested?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would put the case of the Chester County Hospital. There were 64 parishes in the Union. Why should that hospital in Chester be supported at the expense of those 64 parishes? Upon what principle of justice were all the parishes within that union to be made to contribute compulsorily for the relief and support of that institution which was for the benefit of the whole county of Chester, and not only so, but likewise for the county of Flint? There were many other arguments against the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman to prevent the Committee from adopting it. In the first place, he contended that the present state of the law was satisfactory and sound, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) completely broke down when he came to this vital point. The president of the Local Government Board showed that the existing law empowered the representatives of the local committees, who were able to judge of all the circumstances of the case, to subscribe at the public expense to the local hospitals. But then it was subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member for Birmingham said that the Poor Law Board refused its consent. The President of the Local Government Board, who was at the head of that Department, denied this, and said that applications made to the Poor Law Board of the present Government had been acceded to. [Mr. MUNTZ said he had referred to a previous time.] It was in that state of the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Baggallay) proposed a clause insisting that by this enactment they should make every local community subject to a compulsory tax for the maintenance of these hospitals. Was that desirable, or was it not? The hon. and learned Gentleman moved mainly in the interest of the rich and endowed hospitals which possessed £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, and in at least one instance he believed more than £50,000 a-year. Not content with such incomes, he contended that they should by Parliament be allowed to tax the community. He did not think those hospitals were managed with the economy they ought to be. He would not name the hospitals, but he would give the hon. and learned Gentleman the names if he wished. A short time ago there were two hospitals in London which relieved with equal efficiency as nearly as possible the same number of cases annually; but with this difference, the one relieved them out of an income of £15,000, and the other out of an income of £30,000 a-year. That was the income of the endowed hospital, and it was to that income the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to add £3,000 a-year by compulsory taxation on the community. Was that rational? When they had a law by which the local authority could tax the community for these purposes, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, was Parliament to interfere and over-ride that authority and tax local communities for the support of those great wealthy endowed bodies, which undoubtedly did a great deal of good, but he would say fearlessly at a much greater cost than need be. He did not even admit that voluntary hospitals stood on different grounds, or that they should be supported by taxation imposed by the will of Parliament. Taxation by exemption was essentially vicious. When people were taxed it was desirable they should know it, but exemptions hid from the people the fact that they were taxed. Where there was public taxation there ought to be public control. He was the oldest Governor of Guy's Hospital, and he wanted to know why the community in the neighbourhood should be taxed for its support, having nothing to say in its management, and no control over it? But that was the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If an amendment of the law were required, should it not be in the direction of striking out the veto of the Poor Law Commissioners? His hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) desired no doubt to be consistent with the principles he had laid down; but, if so, that was an Amendment to which he would not object. With respect to the main question, he hoped the Committee, considering the power contained in the existing Act, would not accept a measure so retrogressive as that now proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. His hon. Friend said he was ready to meet his opponents at the hustings. If he were, let him vote in favour of the voluntary principle to this extent—namely, to place in the hands of the Guardians the power to decide whether the different localities should be taxed in the manner now proposed.

SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAY

said, he was prepared at any convenient time and place to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman and discuss the circumstances of the two hospitals which he had referred to; and in reference to the one which expended £30,000 a-year, the Committee must bear in mind that the large endowed hospitals not merely received the sick poor, but were also engaged in preparing, by their medical schools, a large number of well educated professional men to go forth into the world. With regard to Chester Hospital, and other hospitals in large towns, the parishes which were taxed would derive a larger amount of benefit by the relief of their sick poor than they would by the taxation. The clause which he proposed did not provide for absolute exemption; it only provided that nothing in this Act, or in the Act of Elizabeth, should make hospitals and infirmaries liable to rating, the Act of Elizabeth being included in order to remove the doubts raised as to the extent of that Act by the judgments of the House of Lords in the cases of the Mersey Dock Company, and Gray v. the University of Edinburgh. The only part of these institutions which his clause would relieve from liability to rating under these Acts was that which was entirely devoted to the purposes of the sick poor. The principle of exemption had been recognized in the case of ragged and Sunday schools; he asked the Committee to extend that principle to the charitable and deserving institutions the subject of the clause.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had asked him to be consistent. He was consistent, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be the same. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that he was prepared to leave the question of rating hospitals in the hands of the Guardians and other local authorities. So also was he, and he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed the clause (Sir Richard Baggallay) would be so too. If an undertaking were given that on the Report the powers conferred on the Poor Law Board would be struck out of the Bill, he was sure the clause would be withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE

observed that the control of the Poor Law Commissioners was salutary as a check, and would not be exercised to nullify the operation of the law. If the hon. Gentleman could show that the board had exercised the veto improperly he should be inclined to agree with him.

MR. SCOURFIELD

said, that these institutions were of infinitely more benefit to the localities in which they were immediately situated than they were to the outlying districts. In addition to this, the immediate locality had the advantage of supplying all the stores wanted by the hospital.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he lived close to Chester Hospital, but in a parish which was not in Cheshire. His district derived the greatest benefit from the county hospital, but would not have to pay one farthing towards its maintenance in return for the advantage it received.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 50; Noes 70: Majority 20.

On Question, "That the Preamble be agreed to,"

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman on the second reading of the Bill had stated there were certain Government properties which he did not propose to make subject to rates, and especially alluded to the Royal Parks, he wished to point out that those Parks would distinctly come within the purview of the Bill if it remained in its present shape. He therefore desired to ask whether before the right hon. Gentleman took any further steps, he proposed to bring in a scheme for the exemption from rating of any portions of Government property. He was also anxious to draw attention to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not propose to interfere in any way with the statutory bargains made with respect to property taken over for Government purposes in regard to rates. With respect to the land purchased for the New Courts of Justice, if it were to continue to be rated as heretofore the amount would be about £4,000 a-year. They all knew that a large sum was about to be expended upon building a Palace of Justice on that site—probably £1, 000, 000—but according to the right hon. Gentleman's plan, the parish in which the land was located would only receive the commuted sum of £4,000 a-year. That he thought was quite right; but take the case of the Houses of Parliament. These buildings cost £3,000,000, and the parish in which they stood would be entitled to require that an assessment should be placed upon them somewhat in accordance with their value and cost. The same remark would apply to Chelsea Hospital, the Horse Guards, the Treasury, and other buildings of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had by this Bill opened the door to attacks upon the public purse which might well be avoided, and he wished to know what he intended to do in this matter.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he thought they would be in a better position to discuss the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman when the Bill, as amended in Committee, was reprinted for the purposes of Report. He, however, did not intend to touch any of the statutable bargains which had been made in reference to particular properties, for if he had done so he could hardly have hoped to pass the Bill this Session.

MR. LIDDELL

protested against the assumption that this House should be assessed upon the cost of its construction. If a man spent £500,000 in building a mansion and impoverished his descendants to future generations, the mansion ought not to be assessed on that account on the cost of construction.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]