The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-06 00:00:00

DISMISSAL OF MR. MORELL.

Lord R. CECIL asked the Vice President of the Council
if he would state to the house the grounds upon which Mr.
Morell had been dismissed from the office of her Majesty's
inspector f'

Mr. LOWE considered it would not bo fair to the gentle-
man in question to make an ex parte statement ; but if the
noble lord would make a motion for the production of the
correspondence that led to his dismissal, it would be laid
an the table:

PUBLIC LANDS AND BUILDINGS (LOCAL
RATES).
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS called attention to the ex-
emption from local taxation now claimed on account of pro-
perty in the occupation of Government departments, and
moved that all lands and buildings used and occupied for
public purposes should be assessed to local rates, and pay
rates accordingly,

ARMY ESTIMATES.
In reply to a question,
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he would bring
in the Army Estimates when the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer made his financial statement.

PUBLIC LANDS AND BUILDINGS (LOCAL
RATES).
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS rose to call attention to the
exemption from local taxation now claimed on account of
property in the occupation of Government departments, and
to move, " That all lands and buildings used and occupied
for public purposes should be assessed to local rates, and
pay rates accordingly." He took the cases of barracks and
dockyards, established sometimes in small parishes, and
paying no rates. At Deptford, where the parish consisted
of 80 acres, the dockyard occupied 40, and never contributed
anything to the poor rates. The people paid for police, the
expense of lunatics, and for the construction of gaols, the
Government not rendering any assistance. He showed that
the county rates had increased from £218,000 in 1792 to
£2,218,000 in 1862, and maintained it was not fair that one
part of the country mould be taxed for another. The hon
member adverted at some length to what his constituents,
the inhabitants of Greenwich, considered the unfair treat-
ment they had received from the Government in the matter
of poor rates, being placed in a different category to other
parishes in which Government property was situated. Ad-
verting then to the general question, he expressed a decided
opinion that parishes in which Government establishments
were situated derived no benefit whatever from the presence
of those establishments ; that the presence of troops in large
numbers largely increased the poor rates and police rates;
and that if the ground occupied by barracks and such esta •
blishnsents were covered by private building, the area of
rating would be largely increased. He thought a fair claim
had been made out for Government paying poor rate, and
he hoped that they would assent to the motion.

Mr. HA.I,TKEY objected to the principle and the terms
of the motioa. He differed entirely from the committee of
1858, and regretted that they should have come to any
such resolution as they had done. If that resolution was
carried out to any extent it would involve very heavy
and unnecessary expenditure by the country. The build-
ings which it was proposed by the resolution to tax were
for general and useful purposes, and benefited the localities
in which they were situated, and on those grounds he ob-
jected entirely to the motion.

Mr. S. BOOTH said that it would be impossible for the
Government to take the same line of argument as the hon,
gentleman who had just sat down, because they had already
given up the whole question. The late Sir G. C. Lewis had
concurred in the recommendations of the committee of 18.58,
and toa certain extent carried them out. After quoting in-
stances in which Government had paid compensation to
different parishes for the non-rating of public establish-
ments, he referred to the change of policy of the Treasury
in this respect. Having admitted the principle, ho thought
the Government were bound to frame certain general prin-
ciples which should guide their conduct in future, and so
relieve the ratepayers from the great uncertainty in which
they were now placed.
Mr. W. MARTIN showed how prejudicially the Govern-
ment occupation affected the ratepayers of Rochester, and
expressed a hope that they would reconsider their decision
in regard to compensation for the non-rating of their estab-
lishments.

Mr. F. PEEL said that the Government did not contend
for the assertion in its full extent of the right of Govern-
ment property to be exempted from local rateage, because
they had for some yeats obtained from Parliament an annual
vote, which was applied as contributions to certain parishes
in respect to Government property. In those parishes,
therefore, they did pay to a certain extent what they would
have to pay supposing the Government property to 1-,e
liable to rating. Circ imstances at the present day, ti,ough
they did not raise the question of the:propriety of r.,xempting
Government property, justified the Governini.,nt in making
exceptions in the application of that priniple. There was
no doubt that Government property was more extensive than
it had been formerly, while local sates, on account of drain-
age and other undertakings, Ind very much increased ; but
while it might be right tlAat the principle of exemption from
rating should be suspbnded in certain cases, he did not con-
sider they ought go to the other extreme, and say that all
Government property should pay rates, just as if it were
private property • He did not think that any property now
in the possession of the Government ought to be made liable
to rates, because, when a great proportion of the property in
a parish had for a considerabie time been exempted from
rates, the remaining property in the parish had been bought
or ranted with a full knowledge of the circumstances, and
allowance had been made for the fact that the rates were
levied on a smaller area, than the whole of the parish. It
was also right that such Government property as might be
liable to rates should be assessed according to its value at
the time 'when it was acquired by the Government, and not
accor,iing to its improved value. Shoeburyness was a good
illustration of this. About one-third of the land in that
parish is occupied by the Government, who consequently
pay one-third of the rates. But the Government have ex-
pended in buildings in that parish upwards of £lOO,OOO, and
if they were rated like private property no less than five-
sixths of the rates would be paid by the Government. He
would set forth to the house the plan adopted in applying
the annual grant of Parliament. The property to which it
was applied consisted of two classes. First, where parishes
made application in respect of a large amount of Government
property within them, and where a large resident population
was thereby brought into the neighbourhood. In such cases
it was conceded that the Government establishments added
to the charges on the parish, and the Government therefore
agreed to contribute to the rates, and—as the line must be
drawn somewhere—it was drawn at one-sixth of the whole
amount of the assessment of the parish. That payment was
to be viewed as a composition in lieu of rates generally.
Then, again, the Government was willing to proceed upon
the principle of indemnifying parishes against actual
loss. In the case of the new barracks at Chelsea, for
example, the Government had purchased twelve acres of
land, which formerly were rated to the parish, and it was
considered that the parish was entitled to continue to receive
from the Government the same sum which it had received
in respect of the property before it was acquired by the
Government. He wished to remind the house that the
exemption from rating of Government property was net
granted by statute, but arose foom the circumstance that it
was not beneficially occupied. The recommendation of the
committee was that all buildings used and occupied by any
persons for any purposes whatever, should be deprived of
any immunity they might enjoy in consequence of there
being no beneficial occupation. (Hear.) A bill was intro-
duced for the purpose of giving effect to that recommenda-
tion, but it encountered so much opposition that it did not
proceed to a second reading. In conclusion, he expressed a
hope that the house would not agree to the motion.

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE beiieved the reason why the
bill to which allusion had been made did not reach a second
reading was, not the opposition it met with, but owing to
the promise made by the Government to carry out the re-
commendations of the committee. The present resolution
went no further than justice demanded, and he should
therefore give it his support.
Mr. LOCKE said that when the committee was moved
for he proposed that an addition should be made to the terms
of the reference, to the effect that all public institutions and
buildings should be included. Why was one rule to be laid
down for the Government and another for the public at
large? With respect to the committee of 1858, the right
hon. member for Wiltshire had brought in a bill founded
upon the recommendations of that committee, that all pro-
berty of whatever description should be rated to the poor,
and bear all other burdens equally. He was sure the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last man in the
world, after having tried to bring all public charities within
the scope of taxation, to say that this principle should not
be applied to all public institutions and buildings alike. For
his own part he could see no inconvenience in applying
such a priucipl..
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
understood it was not at first the intention of the hon. mem-
ber for Greenwich to divide the house upon his motion ; but
as the hon. member had changed his purpose, he wished to
call attention to the true state of the question upon which
they were to divide. Nothing could be more different than
the recommendation of the committee of 1858 and the pro-
posal of the hon, member. The principle of the hon. and
learned member for Southwark he could understand. That
hon. gentleman laid down the proposition that all buildings
and institutions without exception, which would include
churches and dissenting chapels, should be alike rated for
parochial purposes. The hog, member, by way of compli-

ment, claimed his support to that proposition on the ground
of his having advocated the taxation of the public charities
of the country. But lie thought the reception which his
proposal for rating charities met with from hctra. gentlemen
on the other side of the house, and from many gentlemen
advocating popular principles on this side, was not of such
an encouraging character as to induce the house to commit
itself to the principles of the hon. member for Greenwich.
(Hear, and laughter.) The hon. and learned member for
Southwark drew no distinction between sacred and profane,
whether charitable, municipal, corporate, or whatever the
character of the building or institution, he would bring all
into his net, But the proposal of the hon. member for
Greenwich was quite of another character, and would apply
to buildings used for State purposes; so that practically,
while the hon. member would grant exemption to the hos-
pital for dogs, which would come under the designation of
a charitable institution, he would bring Government build-
ings which bad been exempt for a century or upwards within
the range of taxation, How did they stand with regard to
this matter ? It was one which, if thoroughly considered,
would be found to be fraught with extreme complication ;
and the application of the principle of taxation would be
very serious in practice if applied to all buildings and in-
stitutions, embracing museums, the Houses of Parliament,
&c. In many parishes it might be that one-half of the area
and of the buildings were Government property ; and
although that had been the condition for two or three hun-
dred years, the proposal of the hon. member would bring
them under taxation, which would be equal to endowing
the other taxpayers at the expense of the ratepayers of the
whole country. They were dealing gradually with the
question, as in the case of rating land taken for the purpose
of defence, and as in the case of the barracks at Chelsea,
where the Government undertook to bear the amount which
the land before contributed. This he contended was a better
mode of dealing with a difficult question than by an ab-
stract resolution such as that of the hon. member for
Greenwich.

Sir F. BARING recommended the hon. member for
Greenwich to leave the responsibility of the question upon
the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after
the admissions he had made, instead of trying to grapple
with it himself.

Mr. DUTTON said that, to his own knowledge, some
parishes in the neighbourhood of Aldershott were pauperised
in consequence of the exemption from rates of the Govern-
ment buildings.
Mr. B, CARTER said ho should support the motion if
it were pressed to a division, but ho would recommend its
withdrawal.

Mr. ANGERSTEIN, while supporting the motion, also
joined in recommending his hone friend not to press it to a
division.

After a reply fromnr.Alderman SALOMONS, the house
divided—

Ayes
Noes

Majority against

TURNPIKE TRUSTS.

On the motion of Mr. CLIVE, the committee on turnpike
trusts, consisting of 21 members, was nominated, Mr.
Ferrand protesting that the agricultural interests in the
manufacturing districts were not properly represented,
upon it.