The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-12 00:00:00

THE COMPOUND RATING► DIFFICULTY

A deputation of vestry clerks, representatives of.
the committee appointed by the various metropoli-
tan parishes to consider and report what means can
be adopted to avert the impending loss of parochial
rates through the passing of Mr. Hodgkinson's
amendment to the Reform Bill, had a conference,
by previous appointment, with Mr. Gladstone, at
his private residence, in Carlton-house-terrace, on
Monday afternoon. The members of the deputa-
tion were—Mr. Greenwell (Marylebone), Mr. Mit-
chell (Whitechapel), Mr. Layton (Islington), Mr.
Hopwood (Holborn), and Mr. Southwell (Mile End
Old Town).
Mr. GREENWELL, in addressing Mr. Gladstone,
stated that the passing of Mr. Hodgkinson's amend-
ment would cause the loss of an enormous amount
of rates to the parish. That amendment was sup-
ported both by Mr. Gladstone and the Government,
and as the injury which would be inflicted upon the
parishes came principally from that side of the
House of which he was the leader, they had come
to consult him as to what was to be done under the
circumstances. As the measure was a:Government
one, they bad consulted the Poor Law Board, that
Board being the guardians of the rates of the me-
tropolis, and unconnected with the political aspect
of the matter. The subject had been inquired into
at various times by committees of the House and
the Poor Law Commissioners, and they, by their
reports, condemned the system of rating the occu-
pier, as leading to great loss of rates, with-
out any counter-balancing advantage being obtained.
The Small Tenements Act did not apply to places
where there were local Acts, and, therefore, had
nothing to do with the metropolis, where local Acts
were in force. The object of these Acts was stated
in the preambles. Their desire was by some means
to continue to rate the owners instead of the occu-
piers, and they had agreed upon a proposition
which would meet their views, but perhaps it would
not meet political exigencies.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, for his own part, he thought
it was perfect folly to make this Bill interfere in
any way with any arranpments of the parishes
about the rates. If Parliament bad taken care that
the rates were paid he could have understood it,
but he could not understand the interference with
the convenience of the public. He wished to say
that one party in the House bad no views on the
subject, and was not responsible in any degree for
this interference. He had deprecated it all along,
and had assented to it, as be would assent to cut
off his leg rather than lose his life. The majority
of the House had, however, agreed to it, and the
question was, could a proposal be made to meet the
views of the majority, and at the same time meet
the difficulty.
Mr. GREENWELL said what would suit them was
that the rating of the owner should be extended to
cases where houses were let furnished or for a less
term than one year, or when the annual rent did
not exceed £2O. They did not wish to suggest
anything which would retard the passing of a Bill,
or continue an agitation which inflicted a serious
loss upon the trade and commerce of the metro-
polis.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he had proposed his mode,
and it had been rejected. He proposed that a man
should have a vote whether his landlord or himself
were rated. The House rejected that by a majority
of 21. His object was to avoid interfering in any
way with the collection of the rates. There was no
doubt that a great deal of the composition arose out
of the weekly tenancies, and it was perfectly absurd
to propose to ask a man who had a seven days'
holding under his landlord to pay a six months' rate
so as to place him in relation to the parish for six
months, while he had only a holding for a week. lie
did not think he could postpone the subject, for that
would interfere with the political object of the
House. There bad been a great deal of idle talk
and jeering about the compound householder, as if
he were a chimpanzee or an ourang-outang ; whereas
three-fourths of the population were holding houses
under £lO. Therefore, the legislation upon this
point was the Reform Bill. The real Reform Bill
was not settled by any measure or motion until the
passing of Mr. llodgkinson's amendment. The
House meant that the name of the occupier should
be on the rate-book, and that he should be under
full legal liability for the payment of the rates.
Was it or was it not compatible with these two pur-
poses of the House of Commons that they should
make arrangements with the owners, either volun-
tarily or by enactment, which will enable you prac-
tically to collect the rates from the owner. There
is not doubt that it is almost a social necessity that
they should do so.
Mr. GREENWELL said they might put both the
owner and the occupier on the rate-book, making
both liable, but the objection to that on the part of
the landlord was that he would have to pay the rate
for his tenant when that tenant perhaps ran away
without paying his rent.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that what he meant was that
they might make such an arrangement by making
an allowance to the landlord as still to collect the