POOR-RATES.—PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS. (Hansard, 21 July 1836)

The Archbishop of Canterbury
rose to propose the introduction of some amendments which he should have submitted without a single observation, but that he wished to say, in reference to some statements which had been circulated in the public papers, to the effect that the clergy through him, were endeavouring to obtain an exemption of some part or portion of their tithes from the payment of the parochial assessment, that nothing could be more unfounded than such an assertion. He believed, that by the act of Elizabeth every man had been made liable to be rated to the legal provision for the poor and that the law remained in that state still. The clergy desired that all property should be assessed on its reputed value as at present; as they therefore wished that 372 the law should remain as it was now, he would propose an amendment to insert "lands" instead of hereditaments which would have the effect of exempting tithes from rates.

§ The Duke of Richmond
believed, that anciently the rating for the poor was upon tithe, for he found that the maintenance of the poor was chiefly an ecclesiastical affair, a fourth part of the tithes being intended to be appropriated to that purpose. He did not blame the clergy for attempting to maintain their tithes, but he thought that before their Lordships allowed these amendments to be put into the bill, their Lordships should inquire whether they would not entirely neutralize it. He maintained, that the rateable value of property was its fair annual rent—just what it would fetch, and no more. The profits of the farmer formed the result of his own labour, and could not be taxed, any more than the profits of any tradesman or merchant. They might as well inquire what the profits of Drummond's banking establishment were, and tax that. The position which the opposes of this bill wished to take was founded upon the case of "Rex v. Joddrell," the decision upon which had been since overthrown, and shown to be untenable. If the object of the most rev. prelate were, not to defeat the Bill, the much more simple course to pursue would be to add to the clause these words,—"Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be supposed to alter the existing law respecting tithes." There were not ten parishes in England where such a principle as that recommended by the most rev. prelate was acted upon. He wished this bill to pass into a law, because he believed it would have the effect of preventing the fraud which was carried on under the present system, and he would oppose the amendment of the most rev. prelate, because he believed it would have the effect of putting into the pockets of tithe-owners what ought properly to go into, and had heretofore gone into, the pockets of the landowners.

§ Lord Wynford
approved of the most rev. prelate's amendment, because it left it open to the Court of King's Bench to decide what the real law and what the true principle on the subject was, while it would not alter the effect of the bill.

The Marquess of Salisbury
feared, if such would be the effect of the amendment, that too many law suits might result from it-He thought it would be better to leave 373 out the clause altogether and upon that point: whether the amendment of the most rev. prelate was carried or not, he felt very much inclined to take the opinion of their Lordships.

The Earl of Radnor
said, that with regard to the last proposition, their Lordships should recollect that they had divided upon this clause a few nights ago, upon which occasion they determined to retain it. In his opinion, the clause made no alteration in the present law respecting the rating of property. It had been urged the other evening—and he presumed it was upon that ground the noble marquess had expressed a wish to have this clause rejected—that it would occasion great confusion and great expense, inasmuch as every parish must be revalued. The overseer of the parish was bound to value it; and if the valuation were found to be incorrect, and in some places fraudulently made, by being rated on different proportions, then, of course, it would be necessary to have a new valuation, in order that each person might be fairly rated, as the law never contemplated any thing else. With regard to the words moved by the most rev. prelate, who said he proposed them because he had some fear that tithe would be rated in an unjust proportion; and which the noble and learned lord opposite supported not on the ground that they would prevent tithes being rated, but because they would leave the matter open for further consideration, he must observe if these words would have the effect anticipated by the most rev. prelate, they would be mischievous; and if they contained the meaning given to them by the noble and learned Lord, they only encumbered the clause by a superfluity of words, without doing any good. As to rating profits, he did not think that any one could seriously entertain the idea. How was an overseer to calculate or ascertain what portion of the value of the land went in the shape of profits into the pockets of the tenant? If the farmer's profits were to be rated, profits of almost every other description must also be rated.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
had no intention whatever of doing injury to the Bill, his only object being to keep things just as they were.

§ The Lord Chancellor
objected to the amendment, as containing the principle that there was a difference in rating with regard to land and other property; whereas the principle of rating was equality. 374 That was the principle under Elizabeth and the only question was, how to arrive at that equality. He apprehended that the object of the most rev. prelate might be attained by the proviso suggested by the noble Duke, without involving the clause in the difficulty and obscurity, indeed, he might say, the illegality, which the amendment would attach to it.

§ Lord Hatherton
said, be certainly was not satisfied with the terms of the clause as it stood in the Bill. He feared this would lead the overseers in many instances into confusion as to the mode they should act upon in the rating, not only of land, but of canal, railroad, and other property. On the other hand, although he disapproved of the clause, he thought that the amendment of the most rev. Prelate would lead the overseers still more deeply into error. In his opinion it would be better to introduce a proviso, to the effect that nothing in the Act contained should be supposed to alter the proportions in which the different descriptions of property had been heretofore rated.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
had no objection to such a proviso, and to make way for that, begged to withdraw his amendment.

§ The Earl of Harrowby
observed, that, ignorant as he confessed himself to be on this subject, it appeared to him, from the manner in which it had been discussed, that many of their Lordships were not much more intimately acquainted with it than he was himself. He therefore felt inclined, if he thought he should meet with any support, on the motion for the third reading, to move that it be read that day three months.

§ The Duke of Richmond
was much surprised that the noble Earl should think of taking such a step after the Bill had gone through so many stages, and been so fully discussed. He believed a measure of the kind most necessary in order that, the people of this country might know if they were justly and equally rated, and that the confusion and fraud which at present existed might be put a stop to. The present system of appeal, for instance, was a 375 mere mockery, and yet the noble Lord intended to move that the bill be read a third time that day three months, and that too upon the one only ground, that the House was not sufficiently informed upon it. If that were the case, he would only entreat the noble Lord to give an example by examining the different clauses, and by making inquiry of those who knew something on the subject. If he did so, he would venture to say, he would not then think this Bill unnecessary.

§ The Earl of Harrowby
observed, in explanation, that his reason for wishing to defer this Bill until next session arose from the great uncertainty which appeared to prevail on the subject. On that account he thought it might be as well to take more time to consider it, but if their Lordships were of opinion that they would have time this session to do so, he should be sorry to throw any impediment in the way.