The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-20 00:00:00

APPEAL—THE PARISH OF ST. GEORGE, HANOVER-SQUARE,
V. THE COUNTY RATE OF MIDDLESEX.
For the Appellants, Mr. BODKIN and Mr. DOANE ; for the
Respondents, Mr. ADOLPHUS and Mr. PRENDERGAST.
Mr. BODKIN—May it please you, Sir, I have the honour
to appeaf on behalf of the parish of St. George, Hanover-
square, and although it may be said that in coming here (as
we are obliged to come) before gentlemen who are to be
judges in their own cause, yet I am sure we shall not
thereby be damnified, but that this Court will readily
grant us the opportunity to have the decision of the
Bench reviewed, if, in the end of this case, we should be
obliged to ask for that opportunity. In the county of
Middlesex, the powers given as to making the County-
rates are different from that of all other counties, and
although the general Acts upon this subject are applicable
to this county, there are, besides those Acts, some special
provisions which apply only to this county. In the order
for making the rate of the 27th October, and against
which rate we appeal, it is recited that Sir Robert Baker
had duly accounted for all monies he had received,
whether of the last, preceding, or any former rate or rates,
and that Mr. Allen, the present treasurer, had in like man-
ner duly accounted for all monies he had received, whether
arising from the last preceding, or any former rate or rates
not accounted for : it then recites that these respective
accounts were duly presented to the Magistrates on the
first day of the October Session ; they were referred to two
Committees of Justices to audit the same, and that, subse-
quently, on the County day, the 27th October, it was made
to appear to this Court that three-fourths of the monies ac-
tually received of the last preceding rate had been actually
and duly expended, and that it was necessary to make a
new rate, which rate of one halfpenny in the pound having
been then made, the demand upon the appellant parish of
St. George, Hanover-square, was made for its quota of
1,117/. Gs. We thereupon gave a notice that we intended
to appeal against the said rate ; on the receipt of which
notice we were, by the other side, requested to state the
grounds of our appeal. I believe it is not necessary for
us, according to the statute, to do so ; but after the very
courteous request, begging to be furnished with our ob-
jection, we, in the same spirit of courtesy, replied that
we were not called upon to do so by the Act of Par-
liament, but there was no objection on the part of the
appellants to state the grounds, reserving to themselves
the right not to be concluded by that notice, but to act
upon any other grounds which they might, upon the hear-
ing of this appeal, consider themselves entitled to take.
The two first grounds of this appeal then are—that the
accounts were not duly and properly audited and allowed,
and that three-fourths of the amount of the next preced-
ing rate had not, at the time of making the rate of the
27th October, been duly and properly expended. We
have other grounds of appeal, but on which it may, perhaps,
not be necessary to enter. In this stage of the inquiry,
I will direct the attention of the Court to the 16th sec-
tion of the 3d Geo. IV., cap. 137, the Local Act for
this county—to the appeal clause, which enacts, that if
the Churchwardens and Overseers, or other inhabitants,
have reason to think that they are aggrieved by any rate
made under this Act, or any of the Acts therein recited,
on the ground of any account of the said Treasurer, or
any part or parts of any such account not having been
audited, or having been unduly or improperly audited or
allowed, or on the ground of three-fourths of any former
rate or rates not having been duly expended previously
to the making of any new rate or rates, or any other
just or reasonable objection to such rate or rates, then in
such case these parties may appeal to the next General
Sessions, or the next General Quarter Sessions.
The CHAIRMAN—Then you mean to say that three-
fourths of the last preceding rate had not been duly ex-
pended, and that the accounts of the Treasurer had not
been duly and properly audited and allowed ?
Mr. BODKlN—Precisely so ; and in truth if we look
critically at these two causes of our appeal, it will be
found that they merge into one ; and, therefore, for the
purpose of shortening the position, let us in my further
ob-
servations consider these two grounds of objection to the
rate to mean the same thing ; because if any sum had been
unduly expended, exceeding 1.51. Os. Gd., then, as a matter
of course, three-fourths of the monies received of the last
preceding rate had not been properly and duly expended.
As I do not know what my Learned Friends on the oppo-
site side will do, I do not mean to be concluded by adopt-
ing the proposition I have just made. The first question,
therefore, is substantially this—that three-fourths of the
last rate actually received had not been actually and duly
expended when the present rate was made on the 27th of
October. I shall now call your attention to the Local
Act, the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th sections, 3d Geo. 4. c.
107. The Learned Counsel then read these clauses which
require the Treasurer to deliver in his accounts at every
Quarter Sossion ; that the Justices are to make a rate at
every Quarter Session, after they have audited the ac-
counts ; and that when three-fourths of the monies received
of the last preceding rate have not been expended, then
the order for making a new rate shall contain a proviso,
that no monies shall be received of the new rate until
three-fourths of the money received of the former rate
shall have been actually expended. I stop here. Accord-
ing to my interpretation of these sections of this Act, I
say it was intended by the Legislature that the new rate
should be founded upon the basis of the audit of the ac-
counts, directed to be presented on the first day of the
Sessions. I think it is impossible to look at this Act with-
out seeing that the object of the Legislature was to pre-
vent the accumulation of large balances in the hands of the
Treasurer, a practice which had in former instances prevailed,
and to the great injury of the rate-payers of this county.
The Statute then directs that the Treasurer shall account
to the Justices, on the first day of the Session ; that these
accounts must be audited and allowed ; after which audit
and allowance of these accounts, and not before, the justices
arc to proceed to make a new rate. I think then it is
clearly shown that the proceedings of the justices as
to a new rate must be founded on the basis of the audit
of the accounts the treasurer presented on the first
day of the session. Look again at the seventh section, and
it is therein directed that within fourteen days after the
allowance of these very accounts presented by the trea-
surer on the first .day of the session, the treasurer shall
transmit a full copy of the same account, with the names of
the justices who shall have audited and reported on the
same subjoined thereto, together with a true copy of
the order for allowing the said accounts attested by the
clerk of the peace, to the churchwardens and overseers
of the poor of every parish and extra-parochial place, for
for the information of the inhabitants, and the trea-
surer is further, required to publish within ten days
after the allowance of his accounts an abstract of his
accounts in three of the daily London Newspapers.
What was the object of the Legislature ? That the
inhabitants to be affected by the new rate, and the
parishes interested in the matter, might have an op-
portunity to examine the financial statements of the Trea-
surer ; and unless the rate is so made you clearly evade
and counteract the wholesome provisions of this Statute.
You say, true ; we will receive the Treasurer's account on
the first day of the Session ; but between the audit of that
account and the day for making the new rate, he shall pay
away or receive just as much money as he likes.
CHAIRMAN—I wish to know whether the point you
put is this ; that three-fourths of the money received of
the last preceding rate must appear to have been paid away
in the accounts presented by the Treasurer on the first day
of the Sessions ?
Mr. BODKIN-4 say the rate must be founded on the
basis of the published audited accounts. If you are to
make a rate on a particular day of which we are to know
nothing, then all the provisions of this Statute arc evaded,
and we are left as much in the dark as if you sent no
account at all to the parishes ; and, therefore, I say the
rate must be made on the basis of the account audited,
allowed, and sent to the parishes. In this appeal I shall
conceal nothing. I put the case fairly before you as lam
instructed to do ; therefore, if three-fourths of the monies
received of the last preceding rate have not been duly
expended—l do not mean to contend that you had
not the power to make a rate—but in that event,
by the 10th section, the order for making the rate
must contain the restrictive clause, that no money
of that new rate shall be collected until three-fourths of the
former rate actually received have been expended ; and
therefore in the present rate, against which we are here
as the appellants, I say the rate is bad, because the order
for making that rate does not contain the restrictive clause
of the 10th section.
CHAIRMAN—First, then you say we have no power to
make the rate ; but if we have the power, then that we have
not done a something which we ought to have done.
Mr. BODKlN—According to my view of the case the
Justices ought to have taken the audited accounts of the
Treasurer presented the first day of the Session ; by these
accounts three-fourths of the last rate actually received had
not been expended, for there was 12,0171. cash in hand.
You made a rate ; that rate did not contain the restrictive
clause, and the Session should have gone over before that
restrictive clause could have been taken off. What are the