The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-09 00:00:00

rates. But some of my friends think that they have
great cause for triumph if they can inflict the burden
Oil these companies. Ife I for the proscribed interest of
railway property. I thick the way in wl.ich they are
rated is most unjust, and the same with gas and water
compatties who bear their portion of the taxation. But
the real property, which is one•fourth of the wealth of
England, is exposed in the way I have described to
much heavier t fixation. It is unjust, and we must have
the means of redressing it, because the measure I sug-
gest is founded on justice, and therefore will ultimately
succeed. If one calmly considers this case—if it were
not in England that it occurred—it is as if
one was travelling in a foreign country, and that, for
the first time, we became acquainted with the system
of finance. It is so remarkable that if we were in a
strange country and learned that, independent of those
who bore their share of the whole taxation, there was a
private and separate revenue to an enormous amount
assessed on one fourth part of the property of the
realm, I ask, what would be the conclusion at which we
should arrive ? Why, Sir, we should say, this must be
a part of some country—probably a remnant of some
conquered race—some proscribed portion of the com-
munity who have been c wquered, and who have borne
these burdens for centuries—these are the fruits of a
vassal-war which have been removed. But who would
suppose that this peculiarity was the privilege of the
proud and rapacious aristocracy of the country ?—the
people who made all the laws ; and &so made the
laws for their own advantage, according to the doc-
trine of those who pretend to instruct it?—(Loud
cheers.) But, Sir, the most anomalous part of this un-
paralleled state of affairs is, that it is not the law of the
country. The laws of England have always been the laws
of common sense; they never anticipated conclusions so
monstrous and so oppressive.— (Hear, hear.) I need not
now, considering those whom I address—l need not re-
mind them. I say, that the old statutes never anticipated
or enforced any such injustice. We know that the fa-
mous Act of Elizabeth was conceived in the wisest
spirit, and expressed in the wisest terms—that all the
inhabitants of the country, according to their means,
should be called upon to contribute to the maintenance
of the poor. We know, that, in comparatively modern
times, the Act of William and Mary established a land-
tax—only in common parlance called a land tax—a tax
on all property. It was not a question of contribution
from land only. The land-tax extended also to persons
holding certain offices. Under the Act of William and
Mary—l believe, Sir, that the judges to this day pay
that tax, though I believe the tax was assessed upon
the allowances which Here established in the time
of William and Mary, and not upon those granted
by our gracious Sovereign. And, in modern times—
in our own time—you have declared all property,
of all kinds, should be made liable to those imposts
which only real property has contiuued to pay. I need
not remind the House that stock in trade escapes assess-
ment to the poor-rate only by an annual Bill, which is
passed also by this rapacious aristocracy.—(Cheers.)
That rapacious aristocracy exempt stock in trade from
the poor-rates, and they inflict this burden on that pro
pert), in which they are peculiarly interested. I ask,
then, in the first place, with what show of reason can it
be advanced, that, for the objects for which these rates
are raised and taxes levied, the local property in a dis-
trict should have to bear additional burdens? Whether
a man's property be in broad acres, or whether he receives
his revenue from other sources, he is equally liable to the
maintenance of the poor. A district, you say, uses cer-
tain roads—the man living in it is interested in the admi-
nistration of justice, and for the good of his soul we hope
he goes to church. No human being will argue against
this. Expedients you may suggest. You may say that the
system has gone on, and that there is a difficulty from
which it is impossible to extricate ourselves—that there
is nothing more difficult than to tax personal property in
a locality—that it is not only inquisitorial but unjust to
do so, and that it is impossible of accomplishment.
These are arguments which you may use, but no man
can maintain them on the principles of justice. No one
can lay it down or maintain it for a moment, that either
property should be exempt. The system may be con-
tinued, but no one can argue that it is just. Now I will
admit fully, frankly, and fairly, that the inconveniences
—perhaps even the impossibility—of rating personal
property in a locality in any satisfactory manner, are in-
dubitable. But I am of opinion that if we pursue this
important inquiry with a less superficial spirit than we
usually, from various circumstances, regard such matters
in this [louse, we may, perhaps, find that the difficulty
will disappear, or that a solution of it may be found. In
the first place, I confeas it appears to me that a great deal
of difficulty arises from a confusion of terms, from the
world persisting to associate with what is called local
taxation, as a necessary consequence, the idea that the
purposes for which local taxation is enforced are of a
local nature. Sir, I doubt whether it can be supposed
that the purpose for which taxation is locally levied is
of a local nature. On the contrary, I think it is levied
for purposes of a much wider and more comprehensive
character. I take the first, for example, as being the
most important tax—l mean that for the maintenance of
the poor. I know no a priori reason why the mainte-
nance of the poor should be the duty of a locality. The
maintenance of the poor is either a matter of police or
of social or religious duty. In looking over the ancient
statutes of our predecessors, we find they viewed it iu the
limited light of police regulation. To allow people to
perish of famine is to produce mendicity and violence;
and certainly the most convenient way to defend our
persons from assault, and our property from rapine, is
by a poor-law. But it is not to be understood in that
lirnit~d sense. The matter is viewed in a much higher
light in this House and through the country.—(Hear.)
It is viewed as a social duty, justified by state policy, and
under the sanction of religion.—(Hear.) But it' the
maintenance of the poor be a social duty, it is the duty
of every one according to his meaus.—(Cheers.) And,
Sir, in a country like England, an ancient country of
complicated civilisation, it is totally impossible that you
should lay it down as a principle that a particular dis-
trict shall support its poor, unless you can prove that that
district produced its poor, or unless you can insure that
local district from metropolitan and imperial legislation,
which may have the effect of intering with employment.
Why the very transition from war to peace throws out a
whole district from employment, yet that portion of the
country has not waged war or declared peace, and there-
fore is not responsible for the mainte 'lance of those
people. That is a view of the question which, if fol-
lowed up in a country like England, cannot fail to throw
light on the circumstances of the case. The very altera-
tion of a fashion will seriously affect some districts; the
invention of a machine in the north of England—an
invention in Lancashire, will throw a part of Northamp-
tonshire out of employment. In many parts of England
those rural counties are held up to reprobation if they
do not employ their poor, and the existence of the dis-
tress is attested to as a consequence of the late system
of protection. What is the fact? Why, that there are
parts of the country which have been the seats of ma-
nufactures. The manufacturers have haft a population
created by manufactures, and these the land have never
been able to absorb. That is the cause of the misery
of low wages. In Lincolnshire, where there are no
manufactures, on the contrary there we find the highest
wages. But what I have named is the real cause of the
pauperism which exists. So, in the county of Sussex,
where the iron manufacture once flourished, they have
lefts population which the land has never absorbed. Then
you call upon a district to support the population where
there is not much employment. I might say with refer-
ence to this subject also, that either the nation must
support the poor, or throw them upon the employers who
have profited by their labour; yet in 99 cases out of 100,
where the labourer is thrown out of employment, the
distress of the employer immediately follows. In the
case of highway rates the same view of the question
immediately offers itself. It is easy, indeed, to make
flippant observations, and to ask why should not the.
farmers pay for these roads—(which they dol)—it is
not historically true that these roads were made for the
farmers. If the agricultural classes had the monopoly
in these roads, if no one else used them, if they were
private roads, then there would be a valid reason for
these rates. But inasmuch as everybody had the use of
them till the railways came into operation, and that
these roads were covered and traversed by the clerks and
agents of the great manufacturers; inasmuch as that by
law you have settled that a stranger, though he contri-
butes not one farthing to these rates, can indict the pa
rish if the wheels of his cart or his carriage are injured
—you must admit that public ways are for public use.
Besides, I want to know what item of expenditure can
bear this analysis of local purposes and local objects.
Now I will state the case of a gentleman resident in a
midland county, who, in consequence of the distress
which pervades the country, looks at our estimates ;
he opens the estimates, and finds a sum of money of
500,0001. or 700,0001. for foreign packet service. He
says, we know that three-fourths of the letters are
carried either to the metropolis of London or to Liver-
pool, and that the other fourth would not be
carried at all if it were not for the merchants and the
commercial interest. What have I to do with the
packet service? It would be much better that a rate
should be struck upon London and Liverpool for this
purpose. This is a clear case of local taxation, Or he
might, in a midland county, and like the King of Bo-
hemia, who has no seaports—he might object to har-
bours of refuge. And he would say, you might as well
strike a rate on the Cinque Ports, and thus get rid of
the difficulty. 'The same man might object to the ap-
pointment of inspectors of factories. But, no, Sir, he
does not take the limited view which financial re-
formers do.—(Cheers.) He goes on from year to
year in a wise and national spirit, contributing to all.
But if you pursue the inquiry to the subject of expendi-
ture, that is of much greater extent. Now, I take this
case. About six years ago the merchants of Liverpool
were very much vexed, and they though they were very
much oppressed in South America. They were re•
ceived in Downing-street with endless memorials ; and
they called upon the Government to interferd by force,
and defend their property. The Minister who then pre-
sided in Downing-street was a very experienced able
man—till then—(fltlr)—he was thought to be a cautious
statesman. But, on these representations of the Liver-
pool merchants, he was induced to interfere in the
troubled waters of La Plata. What was the conse-
quence ? There was a vast expenditure, and great in-
dignation evinced. Six years having elapsed, and my
gentleman in the midland county, unfortunately aware
of this expenditure, because it was thought unnecessary
to the interests of commerce, finds that all he knows is,
that some Manchester gentlemen attack the Government
on account of their armaments, and denounce these
armaments as being only kept up to support the
younger children of the aristocracy.—(Great cheer.
ing.) I say that is a clear case for levying a
separate rate on Liverpool —it is a clear case
of local taxation, and we could bear this bur-
den of 10,000,0001. or 12,000,00 W. if the rest of the
taxation were apportioned in the same spirit. But look
at the case of the Manchester school. A few years
back the Manchester merchants were of opinion that the
Chinese empire, possessing 300,000,000 of human
beings, were indicated as their best customers, that our
home trade was as nothing, if each Chinese spent as
much aycee silver 43 amounted to sovereign in the

year; and they accordingly pressed the Government,
by means of their restlessness and commercial intrigue,
into a war with China. Now, my country gentleman,
not being so dull as he is supposed to be, might have
said, " I have great doubts on this subject. I inherited
a magnificent library from my father, and, from what
I have read, I think it is not likely, though China may
possess 300,000,000 of iehabi ants, that they will carry
on a commensurate commerce in exchange for our
goods." Now, what the country gentleman said, hap.
pened ; and never was there c-rester disappointment
evinced than by the Manchester merchants.
They said it is true that, having obtained a
reduction of the duty, we now consumed 30,000,0001b5.
of tea. But, Sir, my country gentleman might say, "I
doubt whether this cone= ption of 30,000.00011e5. of
tea is good for our nerves. Why not take off the duty
on malt, and return to that Saxon beverage to which our
Saxon ancestors owed their long lives, and whose
example I desire to follow? When I find that this
China affair ends in a considerable expenditure, may I
not call for a rate to be struck against Manchester?"—
(Laughter) Sir, it is the same with the county rate—it
is the same with the church-rate. The county rate is
one upon which, with the permission of the House, I will
for a moment venture to touch, because I am sure, from
what many Hon. Gentlemen have said even in this House,
where we are all so well informed, especially upon this
subject, the greatest mistakes sometimes occur. Now the
county rate is a rate that is levied, is an ancient tax that
is raised in this ci untry—a direct tax—for the purposes
of justice. And, Sir, about the year 1835, it is known
to the House that the Government of the country
(aware of the great and unjust burden on the land
of this rate, principally occasioned by the expenses
of the execution of justice) agreed to pay one-half
the cost of criminal prosecutions, and that was done
without much of the public attention being given
to it, and the general impression in the House and
the country was, to a great degree, that the landed in-
terest, as usual, had taken advantage of the Minister in
a weak moment, and by some means or other had got
rid of one of the great burdens, and foisted it upon the
Consolidated Fund.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, that was
in the year 1835. I want to show you how the county
rate is expended, and for what it is expended. And in
order to clear this point from those misconceptions that
are so popular in the public mind, I will just call the
attention of the House to the manner is which the county
rate was expended at a period so recent as the year
1835. I take that period, because subsequently to that
year, in the year 1846, the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Tamworth made another change of &peculiar
nature with reference to the county rate, to which I am
about to refer. Sterne, to illustrate the misery of capti-
vity, takes the case of a single captive; and
to make you understand—to put the case
popularly and clearly before the House,—to show you
the nature of the county rate, I will just refer to my own
experience of one day at the assizes, and this will show
you how the county rate acts upon the county, and how
tar, and in what degree, the county may be interested in
the causes of that expenditure. Now, I take this case.
A woman came down to a hamlet in the county with
which lam connected—to a place well known to every-
body—Salt-bill, on the borders of Berkshire and Buck-
inghamshire. She was a stranger, and took a very hum-
ble lodging in, I believe, a public-house. A few days
afterwards a man came down by railroad; he had been
previously connected with the woman; he visits her and
murders her. He leaves Salt-hill. The electric tele-
graph allows him to be arrested the moment
havinghe arrives
been discovered
a t t e stationimmediately inLond London, the murder
after its
perpetration. He is, therefore, arrested in Mid-
dlesex; but the crime having been committed in the
county of Buckingham, the man is taken back to
Salthill, and he is committed to the county gaol at
Aylesbury. The case was one of a difficult kind, for
the murder had been committed by means of poison.
It was necessary that scientific men should be sent from
various parts of England. It was a very expensive
trial. But the prisoner was convicted, and outraged
society was vindicated by the execution of the Quaker
Taw( ll.—(Elear, hear.) The clerk of the peace (al-
though one-half the expenditure of the criminal prose-
cution was defrayed, and as I have often heard it inti-
mated, unjustly defrayed, by the Government)--the
clerk of the peace -sent in his bill (and it was a fair
and reasonable bill), for the county quota for that
prosecution, and it amounted to 300/. Now, I
want to know what had that county to do with the
crime?—(Hear.) The man did not live in Buckingham-
shire; he was not born there; he did not even reside
there ; but that is one of the modes in which the
county rate was only very recently expended.—(Hear.)
I will take another case. On the same day it happened
that a man who was proceeding on one of the canals
which pass through that county with a cargo of coals,
and who had committed a robbery, I think, in either the
county of Rutland or in the county of Northampton,
was arrested in the county of Buckingham. He was
kept a considerable time in gaol, and the bill for his
trial and conviction was upwards of 1001., he having no
more to do with the county of Buckingham than with
the House of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) I will now take
another case; and, let it be remembered, these are three
cases which occurred on the same day, and I have taken
them because they all describe and illustrate different
points. A draper in a flourishing borough town, in the
same county, had a burglary committed in his shop,
from which broad cloth to the value of 20/. is stolen.
The burglar is discovered, arrested, sent to the county
gaol, tried at the county sessions. The whole ex-
pense is paid by the county rate, while the very
goods, the stock in trade of the very tradesman, to
vindicate whose rights of property this expendituro
was incurred, are exernired by you and your laws
from the county rate.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") Now
my argument is this—if the vexation and oppression of
counties paying only one-half the expense of criminal
prosecutions are so grievous, so essentially and palpably
unjust as the genuine ones I have placed before you,
what must they have been before the change of 1835?
Doubly as grievous, doubly as oppressive, doubly as
tyrannical. Nay, even the change of 1835 has been de-
scribed as a positive means by which the landed interest
foisted one of its burdens on the national Treasury.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, I admit that in the year 1846 the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth took off
the other moiety of the county rate, so that no further
bills can be sent in like that which I have mentioned in
the ease of the Quaker Tawell, end no further cases of
oppression can occur like that of the bargeman. But how
was the act of tardy justice done? The Right Hon.
Baronet acknowledged that the justice of the case was un-
impeachable. He did not pretend for a moment on that
occasion that there could be any question about the jus-
tice of the public paying those costs and expenses which
were incurred for vindicating justice and the rights of
society. But the Right Hon. Gentleman gave that relief
to the landed interest upon a memorable occasion, re-
specting which I intend to have no discussion, as far as
I am concerned at present, beyond saying that it was the
deprived
amemorable t
aoccasiont
cotn which
i nwhich
it
had
so itlong of thatenjoyed.
This act of taking the other half of the county rates as
to the exp, nse for criminal prosecutions was the most
important measure of compensation given on that occa-
sion.—(Hear, hear.) The claim was so just that it seems
to me that all that was required was, that it should have
been stated properly to the House, and every gentleman
on that side, whatever bis
political opinione, whatever
his occupation, must have felt something not only
unjust, but something shabby in making one particular
class pay the expenses in which the whole nation is
deeply interested.—(Hear, hear.) But having now on
two separate occasions, with a very long interval between
—with great difficulty, notwithstanding the influence
of very powerful ministries, done this tardy justice in
this respect to the owners and occupiers of land, what is
the result, so far as relief goes, as to this very tax? The
county rates are increased in amount—(Hear, hear)—
notwithstanding the Government have themselves under-
taken the expense of criminal prosecutions. This in-
crease in this impost is accounted for by gentlemen who
never inquire into the subject, by our neglect in attend-
ing to our affairs, by the levy of this tax not being
placed in the power of the community of the county.
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr.
Hume) has frequently urged that point.—(Hear,
hear.)
Now, Sir, in the first place, let me show you this, that
although the State has undertaken to relieve the coun-
ties from the burden of criminal prosecutions the whole
of the county rates of this country, with the exception of
one important item, and that relates to public works of
a particular description, and of uniform benefit—l mean
county bridges—the whole of the county rates of this
country, generally speaking, are, are still expended:for
the administration of justice.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
I have before mu the last abstract of the accounts
of the treasurer of the county of Buckingham, and I
have reason to believe it is a fair representation of what
occurs it every other county. After a certain
expenditure on bridges, very heavy in a
county through which the Thames passes, and
where, for one great bridge, they have been
obliged to expend, although not a rich county, 27,000/.;
the expenditure of the county, with that exception, is
something like 12,000/. a year; the whole of it caused by
expenses for the administration of justice, clerks of the
peace, coroners, maintenance of gaols, lock-up houses,
conveyance of prisoners, &c. The allowance from the
Government for prosecutions, and for the maintenance of
persons under particular circumstances, is less than
4,0001., and, therefore, still two-thirds of the expenditure
of that cottnty (and every county is in exactly the same
position) is, in fact, for the administration of justice,
which is for the interest of all, and in which all are con-
cerned. But, Sir, we are told that the county rate, not-
withstanding the relief given by the Government, is still
increasing, and that it is so because those who admi-
nister the fund. of the county are unequal to the occa-
sion. That is the position of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose. But I tell you, if you go to the finance committee
of the county of Buckingham, you will find your match.
They are men quite equal, even to the Hon. Member
for Men trose.— (Hear.) But, year after year, you forget
you have been passing laws in this House forcing those
districts to erect most expensive public buildings—
(Hear)—and giving them no option whatever on the
subject. The Hon. Member for Montrose talks of the
management of funds. Why, all that those magistrates
can do is to assemble and as trustees under an Act of
Parliament declare a rate to meet the expenditure which
you in your legislative capacity agree to.—(Hear.) I
do not deny that those prisons, built upon a reformed
model; to which my Noble Friend (Lord Mahon) has
referred in his interesting motion, are of great impor-
tance. Far be it from me to deny that the advanced
philanthropy of the age does not call for these erection'',
and the institution of this improved discipline; but what
I main' sin is, that this is a great national object ; that
this is a great national purpose, and that nothing can be
more unfair than that a highly enlightened and philo-
sophic senate should pass laws and inflict upon districts
the raising of most expensive public buildings, and then
refuse to pay for that costly increase.—(Hear.) I then
say that the local taxation is not raised for local pur-
e; and I am per-
w ill make when
fpeoestlys: a
wlat
ries
er
fa itsheed
ntboirene
taitni
no
an awl
hpiue rhpyo
es ens
i make that assertion. The fact is, that the revenue of