The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-26 00:00:00

LiOND Lk WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 16, 1856.

I►iEZ'RO.POLITAN BOAIW. OF WORKS,

A. meeting of the Metropolitan Board of Works was held,
by adjournment, in the Council-chamber. Guildhall, yes-
terday, to consider the statement showing the financial
condition of the several parishes and districts within the
jurisdiction of the Board.; Mr. J. Thwaites in the chair.
The minutes of the last Board were read and confirmed.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Balance in hands of Treasurer, Nov. 18, 1856 £6,897 12 7
Checks drawn, but not presented..

Available balance
Amount of deposit account

MSG 13 9
102,522 2 2

. . .
' Total general balance £109,008 15 11
PARISH OF CAMBERWELL
A deputation from the parish of Camberwell presented a
memorial, setting forth that it appeared by the financial
statement published by the Board that large sums of money
had been borrowed for the purpose of improving the
drainage under the Surrey and Kent Commission, extend-
ing from Ravensworth to the Wandle River, and the me-
morialists could not find that any portion of those sums
had been applied to the improvement of Camberwell, al-
though the adjoining parishes had been greatly benefited.
They therefore prayer.' that before issuing the precepts for
collecting the rates an account shoed be furnished to them
,ihowiug, the manner of the expenditure of that money.
Mr. IRVINE (who introduced the deputation) supported
the prayer of the memorialists, and stated that while the
surrnj atbidossovzore perreetly draTiiiia7Lantifkrafell
W 11.3 loft in a most wretched state. He was almost afraid
to let the fact go forth, lest it skould have the effect of
depreciating the valve of property in that parish. He
moved that the prayer of the memorialists be granted.
Mr. D'IFFAWGER seconded the motion.
The CIIAIRYLAN said if the request of the memorialists
were acceded to it would occupy 12 months in preparing
the nicessary papers, and probably cost 1,4001. or 1,500 t.
before the information rewired could be furnished. He
t rerefere would suggest that a s.nall deputation from the
parish should attend at Greek-street and examine the ac-
counts, and at the same time obtain all the information
they required from the engineer.
Mr. D'IFFANGEA'asked what remedy the parishioners of
Camberwell would have supposing it should be shown that
tee; had been charged unjustly by the late commissioners?
Toe board ought not to cover over the improper conduct of
those commissioners.
Mr. DOULTON could not see that any practical result was
likely to follow the resolution. It was a question whether
the Board had the power to grant these accounts as asked
fur.

Mr. TURNER was of opinion that the Board had not the

power.

Mr. IRVINE said one practical result of granting the re-
quest would be to show that 20,000/. or 30,0091. of rates
had been raised in the parish of Camberwell and had been
applied elsewhere.
The CH,LIRMAN said, even if that were shown, still the
board was utterly without power to remedy it. There
was no unwillingness on the part of the board to remedy a
wrong, provided they had the legal power to do so; but,
when they were distinctly told, as they had been by their
legal adviser, that they had no power to re-open the ques-
tion, it could not be fairly attributed to them that they
were unwilling to do justice to the memorialists.
The motion was then put and negatived.
THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. TURNER rose to propose a motion respecting the
financial statement submitted to the board on the 3d of
October, showing the financial condition of the several
parishes and districts, with the particulars of outstanding
loans and mortgages, and an estimate of the sums to be
aised by the board for the year ending the 31st of Do-
somber, 1856. It must be obvious to every member that
the subject to which their attention was about to bo called
was one of the most important that could be brought un-
der their consideration. If there was ono thing more
important than another for the board to regard it was
that before they proceeded to tax the ratepayers they should
take every possible means to tax them' justly, and in pro-
portion to the relative value of the property in the different
parts of the metropolis. With regard to the assessment of
the value the Board was no doubt precluded by the act of
Parliament from dealing with the greater portion of the
area of the metropolis, beCause by that act it was expressly
stated that where a county rate existed they must take that
rate as the ground of assessment. Still there was a large
amount of property within the metropolitan area which was
not subject to any county rate at all. With regard to that
portion of property the act told the Board that they must
tax it " upon a like estimate," and the question they had to
consider was what a "like estimate" meant. The great
hulk of the property not subject to a county rate was repre-
sented by the city of London. There were smaller portions,
such as the Inns of Court, Furnival's Inn, 8:c. ; therefore
the practical question was whether the Board had taken
every means in their power to assess the city of London upon
a "like estimate" as the rest of the metropolis. When this
questigh was discussed on a former occasion it was con-
tended that the Beard had not taken all the means in their
power to determine at what sum the city of London ought
to be assessed ; and that in order to avoid an inequality of
assessment, instead of taking for their criterion a local
tax, such as the sewers-rate, they ought to have taken the
income tax, which was not a local tax, but one superin-
tended by an external authority, and in all districts and
places managed upon one general principle. Such had been
the criterion taken to avoid any inequalities as between the
parishes of Marylebone, St. Pancras, and St. George's,
Hanover-square, and he would assert that the principle
which was good as between one parish and another was
good also as between Middlesex and the city of London.
Just as they were not willing to take a local assessment
of Marylebone, St. Pancras, or St. George's, Hanover.
square, so ought they not to be satisfied with a local
assessment of the city of London. The property tax was
common to the city of London and all the other" districts
in the metropolitan area, and, as it was necessary for
the purposes of a uniform system of taxation that there
should be one general standard of estimate, none better than
the property-tax could be suggested. He therefore pro-
posed, first, that the Board should adopt a general principle,
and afterwards decide in what manner that principle should
be carried out, whether by itself or by committee. It was
not necessary for the purpose of his argument to prove either
that the sum at which the city was assessed was an adequate
or an inadequate sum. There was no evidence that it was a
just amount, but before the public would be satisfied that
the city was estimated at a proper amount, it must beshown
that they had gone upon the same principle as had been
applied to the other districts in ascertaining that amount.
There was this difference between the assessment on the
sewers rate and the property tax, that the former was
arrived at by the local surveyor, who ascertained the value
t
of the property as well as he could, whereas the latter washe result of returns made by the Occupiers themselves, who
stated the amount of rent actually paid. To justify their
proceedings, therefore, it was necessary the Board should
inspect the property 'tax returns, which enabled them to
ascertain whether any'and what inequality existed. This
was not entirely a matter of speculation, for on referring
to a return made to Parliament in 1855 h e found the pro-
perty tax for the city of London was 1,584,3511. This sum,
however, included the Inns of Court, which were not in
eluded by the valuation of the Board, and therefore a sum
of 106,1841. would have to be deducted. The sum, then,
assessed to the property tax in the city of London, after
making that deduction, would be 1,478,1671., excluding
fhe Inns of Court. The sum put down in our financial
statement is 1,153,0691., making a difference between the
property tax assessment and the assessment by the Metro-
politan Board of 325,0 98/. This difference between the
two assessments was 22 per cent. He had deduced from
the printed tables the difference between the property tax
assessment and the county rate assessment on property in
the other parts of Middlesex out of the metropolis, and he
found it to be 16t per cent.—that was to say, the sum at
which they proposed to assess the city of London was 22
per cent, below the assessment of the property tax, while
the sum at which they pfoposed to assess the other parts of
Middlesex was only
16i per cent. under the property tax.
If these calculations were correct they were in favour of
the which
city
of ought
London t o
the city of London from 51 to G per neut. That was a mat-
ter
werebe inquiredme de equalinto.
to assessmentltfhtehto averagee ss
e of
ment of the rest of Middlesex, 85,0001,be added
and that basis ought to
to the amount of the estimate.
was sorry his motion should beßo
for inquiry. A general basis of t
tives of the city, because he was Poe
be the property tax. He
pah;yasade tad anxious
ought
ri
ogee
tuhehshoe uotrlwoedpne
representa-
tives sr esta-
blished,eeynuotnaad-tcarrying out—viz., an equality of taestss'et4
mem-
ber concluded by moving the foylleofwLineagelinsO
the principle they themselves pro;'
lTuhtieonh°:-11. '
to be desirous of
for the purposes of the Metropolitan L
London may be assessed
Local Management
" That, in order that the city
Act upon a like estimate with the r st of
is requisite that regard should be hadl tothl
metropolis, it
which the City of London has been assessed the amount
Finance" Committee, of which he
Jii
just estimate of
r ofp theALT
oii propertysaia t
htea tax."
pur-
posesat
Mr. SAVAGE seconded the motion.
was a member, endeavoured to arrive at a
ado'pt theo
the amount at which the city ought to be assessed. The
committee could not at the time get the properte
motion would
re-
turn, but it had since been obtained. A questiyonaxh ever, was raised whether the board could legally
property tax as the criterion of value, but Mr. Wool ych
their legal adviser, having givin his opinion that they
ells LeipoUnt eyIIIttHARRISONd
could, he (Mr. Dalton) thought the board ought to consider
to
dthidemnebtythAilnrk. Tthuerner.
effect the object the hon. member had in view—namely, an
equality of taxation throughout the whole of the roetropo-
th u.
litan districts. He would not discuss the legal question
whether the board could or not base the assessment of the
rateable value of the City of London upon the returns made
to the Property Tax Commissioners ; but it would be un-
fair if hedid not state to the board that that question Lad
been, raised and a regal opinion taken upon it, which opin•

ion was to ;,Js 4 effect that the board haal no such power.
Mr.Turnerl ad.atatefl that the rateable value returned.fer
the City:of Lbndon. 'was, according to a Parliamentary re-.
turn, 22 per tient...udder the value as fixed by the ''i-operty
Tax Commisgoners. Now, he was prepared to'say that if
all the districts within the metropolitan area were assessed
upon the property tax returns he was the last man'to Op-
pose it. On examining tilt estimate of the value of the dif-
ferent districts it would be found that nothing like such a
basis had .been adopted, and ho would briefly show the in-
justice of applying.the property tax standard exclusively
to the City of London. By the Parliamentary return it
was clearly Shown that Flampsteatl, the district repre-
sented by Mr. Turner, was assessed at 23 per cent. under
its proper value, the city 'being only assessed at 22 pen
cent. under its value. .7.+larylebone, on the other hand,
was charged so high that the estimate was only 14
per cent. under its proper value. St. Pancras was still
higher estimated, it being only 12i per cent. below this
Parliamentary standard ; and-Lambeth was below the
standard, while the City was only 22. If, therefore, the
board would adopt the criterion of value generally to all
the districts alike, he would agree to it with thankfulness,
.but he could not consent toanake the City of London an
exception. He would jest mention the discrepancies that
existed in regard to other parishes. St George's, Hanover-
square, was estimated at 18 per cent. under the value as-
signed to it by the property tax return; Islington, 21 per
cent.; Shorediteh, 24per cent.; Paddington, 21 per cent.;
Bethnal-green, 18i per cent. ; Newington, 20 per cent. ;
Camberwell, 17' per cent. Thus it appeared that the
county rate afforded a most variable criterion of value
when compared with the property tax returns; and yet,
becauso the City of London happen7l to have no county
rate, it was proposed to assess it up to the fall amount of
the property tax return. The board never could ajopt such
a course. The sewers rate had.beetatalien as the ground of
ass6stnent for the City instead of a county rate, the City
not having any such rate. Surveyors had t'ben appointed
who were bound to snake that rate an equitable oue, and
the best mode for arriving at' au accurate estimate had
been adopted. There would...be in a few weeks a new rate
made for the City of London, and it might therefore be
necessary to postpone this question till that took place.
Meanwhile all he asked was justice. He sought no favour;
but he could not consent to apply a principle to the Cityof
London which was not applied generally to the other dis-
tricts of the metropolis. If Parliament had intended to
aseertaiu the rateable value by means of the property-tax
returns, nothing would have been more easy than for it to
have been declared in the act itself. But it stated that
where there was- no county rate you should take. a like •
rate and in this case you had a like rate.
111 r. WRIGHT —No ; the act means a like estimate, and
not a like rate.

Mr. Hows called upon the board to make an exception
in the case of the City of London, because the act itself
had made that exception. It stated that the rate was to
be made upon the basis of the county rate, where there
was one. But in the city there was no county rate, there-
fore the city was in au anomalous position. Had the
committee been able to obtain the property tax returns,
an accurate basis for the accountant to make out the esti-
mates would have been afforded ; but those returns were
not forthcoming at the time the financial statement was
made. Since then the returns had been obtained, and by
them it appeared that a very large increase of value ought,
in justice to the other districts, to be made in regard to
the city of London, the difference being not less than from
300,000/. to 400,0001., which the committee would certainly
have included if the property tax returns had been before
them.
Mr. LESLIE said the question had got into a form which
was exceedingly disagreeable. It was not a contest be-
tween the city of London and the other portions of the
metropolis, but the question was whether they had arrived
at the right system by which all paities should be made to
pay alike. He had only just seen the Parliamentary
nitumapbpe era orefa that houses
thtoe
paper quoted by Mr. Deputy Harrhon, and its contents
struck him with astonishment. It stated the rateable value
ob fe the 7,2 907 i
whereast to be l, sbB; ,
another3sl / .
a turnrdegien
number of houses was between 14,000 and 15,0,10.
-Mr. TURNER-14,E93.
Mr. LESLIE—Very well ; what, then, was likely to be
the result. Why, instead of the rateable value of the
city being 1,586,3511., it was likely to be 3,000,000/. How
this discrepancy arose ha could not toll. He understood
that the magistrates of Surrey and Kent were about to
make a new rate, making the property tax an element in
their calculations. It therefore appeared to him that the
board were not yet ripe for making a rate; that, in fact,
the basis on which they hail proceeed was bad, and that
equal justice would not be done by it.
Mr. DOULTON said, if he understood the object of the
hon. and learned mover, it was not that the board should
base their calculations upon the property tax return ; but
what he asked was that the sum which was assessed upon
the city of London should bear the same proportion to the
property-tax as the sums assessed upon the other parishes
bore to the same tax. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Deputy HARRISON. —To that I have no objection.
Mr. DoueToN.—The hon. deputy said he had no objec-
tion; if so, then there was an end to the discussion, be-
cause the resolution did not commit the board to an assess-
ment based on that property-tax return. Hie,did not care
whether his own parish (Lambeth) should be raised 10 per
cent. or not, because he knew that other parishes would
b© raised to the same or a still greater extent: The question
ought not to be delayed, otherwise the parishes would be
called upon to pay two or three rates at the same time.
Mr. OFFOR feared the property-tax would not form in
any shape whatever a correct datum. for thorn to proceed
upon with regard to the assessment. At all events, they
must :Let upon one uniform system in regard to all the dis-
tricts. The city having no county-rate was no reason why
the property-tax should be taken as the datum. There
were great discrepancies ha the returns as to the value of
property. In one return the rateable value of the property
in one portion of the county of Middlesex was stated to be
1,697,6011., whereas the return under schedule A of the
property-tax the same district was 2,214,3321. This differ-
ence no doubt arose from the fact that tithes, manors,
profits on railways, on gasworks, and on other descriptions
of property, were assessed in schedule A as well as rental.
Under these circumstances there was a decided objection
to take the property-tax return as a criterion. All that
was wanted was an equality of rating, and, although the
poor-rate was not in all respects unobjectionable, still,
taking it as a whole, he could not conceive any better sys-
tem than the adoption of the poor, or, what was an equi-
valent in the city, the paving, sewer, and lighting rate.
They had not to rate the inhabitants upon their property,
but assess the aggregate amount each district should pay.
He therefore hoped they would adopt the recommendation
of the committee. ,

Mr. HAWKES was of opinion that nothing would be
more deceiving than the adoption of the poor-rate as a
rule for their guidance, every parish 'making a different
degree of deduction in heir ratings, some taking off 6 per
cent., others 7, and up to 10 per cent. The property-tax
returns were also very deceptive, and the Board isiust
'either devise some better mode of assessment or go to Par-
liament for further powers.
Mr. WRIGHT was of opinion th;t the difficulty expe-
rienced in this matter entirely arose out of the misinter-
pretation of the words of the act, By the act the rate was
to be based upon the • county-rate, where there was one,
and where thole was no county rate then the amount of
the rata was to be assessed " according to a like estimate,"
not "according to a like rate." There was all the differ-
ence. Theilnance committee or the accountant had taken
the consolidated rate of the city as " a like estimate," and
it was for the Board to determine whether it was a like
estimate or not. The committee said it was a like esti-
mate. Mr. Turner impugned that statement" and said it
was not, and that the consolidated rate did not bear the
same proportion to the property tax as the county rate in
the other districts did. It was altogethera question of pro-
portion. He asked the Board, as business men, to decide
whether it was to be a like rate or a like estimate. A like
rate was a rate for a similar purpose ; a like estimate was
an estimate of a similar kind.
Major LYON said it would not be fair for the committee
to adopt their recommendation, inasmuch as it was made
before the information which had been since obtained was
known to them.

Mr. KNIGHT was of opinion that the consolidated city
rate was in every respect on a parity with the county rate.
If the Board accepted the county rate with all its infirmities
why not accept the sewers' rate with all its infirmities ?
Mr. D'IFFANGER felt assured that there was no member
of that Board who had any desire to act unjustly towards
the city, but the hon. deputy had told them that even the
city people were not satisfied with their present rate—(no,
no !)—and were about to make a uew one. At all events, he
(Mr. D'lffanger) knew that his constituents would not be sa-
tisfied with the present assessment. Considering the great
error rnade in the return of the number of houses assessed
in the city, he thought the better sours° would be to post-
pone the whole question till the Board had the new rate of
the city before them.
Mr. CRELLIN did not find that persons were always rated
in proportion to the benefit they derived from the object
from which the rate was raised. He could not see why the
occupier of a largo house which was most valuable because
it was situated iu Cornhill should pay a much greater sum
for the sewers rata than the owner of a similar house would
pay if situated in another part of the .metropolis. He
thought the sewers•rate was as near the right system for
rating the city for the purposes of that Board as could be
obtained.
Mr. WILKINSON remarked that the Board were bound to
adopt the county rate, save in the case of the City of Lon-
don, and, therefore, it was useless to discuss its propriety.
They were bound to adopt the county rate as a basis, with
all its infirmities. Whether the sewers rate valuation or
the property tax bore the nearest approach to the county
rate assessment might involve a nice legal question, but in
his opinion, if they adopted the consolidated City sewers
rate as a basis for taxation, their whole assessment would
be illegal. They should take the property tax as the
nearest approach to justice.
Mr. TURNER replied, when a division took place—
For the motion ............ 17
Against it .................. . 12
Maj0rity.......... . ............................ —5
After a discussion, it was agreed to refer thb whole finan-
cial statement to the committee for further consideration,
many of its members, however, expressing their opinion
that a committee of the whole board would be preferable.
Mr. DREW then gave notice of the following motion
" Thatit be an instruction to such committee to take into
o consideration
the otherwise
late
Cop
Commission
providing
dsrsieinnpogor
theot
of Sewers,
o
o an
m theu utw
expediency
it ha
outstandingv
view
w liabilities
of of
making
the repayment thereof by annual payments of 2 per cent.
and interest, instead of calling upon parishes for an imme-
diate payment of the whole amount?'

IseiatesefoirrmomerltyheofeitthyeoFflrotiaPdoillis,onw,
dFrvroil
many thousands of pounds, and considering that the Board
a very heavy amount of taxation on the metropolis,
is engaged in carving out large improvements which will
impose
o ianvged °ann. outlay tFt, on
it would be inexpedient at the present time to incur such
an expenditure, therefore it is resolved that the report be
not adopted."
Mr. DIFFANGER seconded the motion. The time was
not come when so large a sum of money should be expended
for such a purpose. Theyought to wait till they had-done
some good for the public before tWey raised a building for,
their own especial use.
Mr. TURNER moved as an amendment that the debate be
adjourned.
Mr. SE UEY seconded the motion.
A division was called for, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against • - 13
Majority ; •-2 •
Mr. COLLINSON then moved that the board do adjourn,
which motion was put and negatived.
The main question was then put, whoa there appeared—
For the motion
Against it 9-4

Majority —4
The report of the committee was consequently negatived,
and the board adjourned at a quarter past A o'clock.
Notice was immediately given of a motion to rescind
this vote. •