The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-20 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the trustees
of certain municipal charities in Lancaster complaining
that by a late decision in the courts of law the
legal estate in those charities was not vested in them as
they conceived it ought to be.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition signed by
almost all the male inhabitants in the market town of
Alford, in the county of Lincoln, occupiers of land, and
agricultural labourers, complaining ot agricultural dis-
tress.
Mr. W. BROWN presented a petition from Bradford,
in Lancashire, in favour of the establishment of county
financial boards.
Mr. SHAFTO ADAIR presented a petition from the
Parliamentary and Financial Reform Association of
Cambridge, praying for the repeal of the taxes on know-
ledge.
Mr. G. BERKELEY presented a petition from Glou-
cester against the slave trade.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the clergy-
men and other inhabitants of Camelford against
legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister.-
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition from Sutton
Colefield in Warwickshire in favour of the Small Tene-
ments Bill.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from a place in the
county of Chester complaining of the present law
of settlement, and praying for the establishment of
union rating.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from the owners of
property in Australia praying that no reduction in the
price of land may take place in that colony.
Mr. E. B. DENISON presented a petition from
Sowerby and other places in Yorkshire, praying for the
cessation cf labour in the Post-office on Sundays.
Mr. SIMEON presented similar petitions from places
in the Isle ot Wight. _ _

Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice that, early after
Easter, he would move, in a Committee of the whole
House, the exclusion from our markets of all slave-
grown produce, which was contrary to the true interests
of religion and morality. He also gave notice that, soon
after. Easter, he would move, in a Committee of the
whole. house, that an Bs. duty shall be re-imposed on all
foreign corn imported into this country after a certain
date, and that the revenue from that source shall be ap-
propriated by the Government to tie general reduction
of taxation.

Mr. HAMILTON gave notice that he would call the
attention of the House on an early day to the position in
which the clergymen of the Established Church in Ire-
land stood with respect to the Education Board in

Mr. BAIs:KES presented a petition from Norf.)lk
complaining of the operation cf the present law of settle-
ment; tilsu several petitions from factory workers in
Glasgow and other places complaining of the relay sys-
tem in factories.
Mr. CARDWELL presented several pe`,itions from
Llverpclui a4ainst the Small Tenerneet,' E.,lting Bill.
• SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.

On~the motion for going into Committee on this
Bill,
:Mr. P. SC ROPE took occasion to protest against the
House going into Committee on this Bill, on the ground
that it was an es post facto Bill, and would greatly tend
to acid to the already sufficiently heavy rentals of the
dwellings of the poor. The theory of the opponents of
sach measures was that the population would be checked
by want of house room, ana he was surprised the Right
Hon. Secretary of State, having read all the reports on
this subject, should set his files against this measure.
As he was aware of the feeling opposed to him, he should
not attempt to divide the House at present.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER. agreed with much that
had fallen from the Hon. Member. As it was quite
evident that a large majority of the House were in fa-
♦our of this measure be should not oppose the Bill going
into Committee, but he should reierve to hituselr the
right of proposing any modification of it when he was in
Committee. _ _ _

Mr. E. DENISON said he thought it was perfectly
understood that all rates were paid by zeal property.
The Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to
have forgotten this. The provision was a most
wholesome one, and he should decidedly give it his
support.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he could not see any in-
justice or hardship in making a landowner liable for the
rates of houses under 6/. He was now responsible for
rates of houses between 6/. and 20/., and if he were to build
two boutoa under 61. instead of one at 12/. or 201., he
would not be placed in a wore. position. The House
had already decided in favour of the principle, and he
hoped they would go into Committee upon the Bill.
Sir J. "'ARINGTON said, although he entertained
an objection to some part of the Bill, he did not wish to
move any amendment, lest the progress of it might be
endangered, because he thought it was a measure which
ought to pass. The Hon. Member fir Stroud had said
he opposed the Bill on behalf of the poor, but he (Sir J.
Pakington) supported it for the same reason.—(Hear.)
He was sure it would be of the greatest possible benefit
to the poorer classes.
Mr. BERNAL said a variety of Bills of a similar
nature had passed through his hands, and in all of them
the power given for making the rate was compulsory,
and no discretion was left to the vestry.—(Hear, hear.)
Ho thought the measure, if properly administered, would
redound greatly to the benefit of the poor.—(Hear.)
After an observation from Mr. HALSEY, the amend-
ment was withdrawn, and the House went into Com-
mittee.
Upon the first clause being moved,
Mr. HALSEY moved the insertion of words requiring
that two thirds of the votes of persons present at a vestry
meeting should be necessary to make their proceedings
legal.
Mr. P. SCROPE objected to the alteration.
Mr. LAW moved that the words, " and are hereby
required," be added to the clause. He made this motion
because he thought the Bill ought to be compulsory and
not permissive.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER thought it better to leave the
clause as it stood.

---
Sir G. GREY said notice ought to have been given of
this important alteration in the Bill; but as no such no-
tice had been given, h• hoped the amendment would not
be persevered in.
Mr. LAW did not wish to press it if threw any obit icle
hi the way of the Bill. .

Mr. B. 'DENISON said there ought to be no roam
left for jobbing; the Bill, therefore, ought not to be op-
tional, but compulsory. _

Mr. BAINES also entertained the same opinion; but
he was anxious to get the greatest amount of good from
the Bill that he could. An amendment introduced at
this sta:;o, however, might prove fatal to the Bill, and he
would :iuggest that the Hon. and Learned Recorder
should pi °pole a clause on the bringing up of the
report.
Captain HARRIS did not think the House was taken
by eurprise by the proposal of the amendment, and as
the Bill, if it paned in its present shape, would lead to
considerable political animosity, he trusted the amend-
ment would be persevered in.
Mr.; SOTHERON depreoated any revival of a dis-
cussion on the principle of the Bill. The object of the
Hon. and Learned Recorder would be better accom-
plished by proposing his amendment cn bringing up the
report.
Mr. CONIPTON was ready to support the amend-
ment if it would not impede the progress of the Bill.
Mr. P. SCROPE should prefer the Bill being made
compulsory now that the House bad decided that it
should pass.
Mr. W. PATTEN did not think the Bill ought to be
compulsory, and the majority of the vestries he thought
would agree with him.

Mr. JOHN WALTER supported the amendment.
Mr. W. MILES thought it was the duty of the Hon.
Gentleman the President of the Poor-law Board (Mr.
Baines) to hale brought in this Bill himself. Ile hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would not endonger this Bill by
persisting in introducing a compulsory clause, sad that
the House would pass the Bill in its present shape.
Mr. PHILIP HOWA R D thought, if the Bill was
rendered compulsory, the House would be assailed with
more opposition than at present existed out of doors. He
trusted the Hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor-
law Board would not insist on the compulsory principle.
Captain HOWARD supported the Bill in its present
shape on the ground that a compulsory clause would in-
crease the obstacles in collecting the rates, and press
with great hardship upon the poorer classes.
Mr. B. DENISON could not understand why the
compulsory principle should be objected to ; he, him-
self, thought it would be most salutary in its operation;
at all events, when the discussion was published out of
doors it would be known who was for and who against
the clause.

Mr. SLANEY supported the compulsory clause.
After a few words from Mr. CAREW and Sir GEORGE
GREY,

The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. WALTER wished to know if the power of ex-
emption, which was given to magistrates, would be con-
tinued or not.

Mr. BAINES said that that power would remain
unaltered.
Mr. HENLEY wished to guard himself from being
committed to the compulsory part of this Bill.
After some conversation as to what should Le under-
stood to be tho signification of rateable value, the
amendments were agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER moved the insertion of the
following proviso after clause 1 :—" Provided always,
that no owner of any such tenement shall be assessed
on, any higher y duation than the sum at which the
said teneracrit shall be let to any occupier thereof."
Mr. BAINES objected to the proviso es being in-
consistent with what they had already agreed to.
Mr. B. DENISON also opposed it ; and
The proviso was ultimately negatived without a

Mr. HALSEY propos:d the following proviso:—Pro-
Tided alwap, tly-t in every mac whEre the owner of
such tenement shall be so rht,ql and assessed to the rates
for the rel of of thc poor, in respect of such tenement,
instead of the occupier thereof, it shall be lawful for

such occupier to demand at any time to have his name
substituted on the rate as the party assessed, instead of
such owner, and after such demand and payment, or
tender, of the last made rate, if then in arrear in respect
of such tenement, such occupier shall be entitled to ex-
ercise all rights, privileges, and franchises whatsoever,
as fully as if his name had originally appeared upon the
rate as the party assessed.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved the omission of all the
words after the word " thereof," with the view of giving
the occupier the right to be entered on the burgess roll.
This Bill would place the rates on the landlord; but in
point of fact they would be paid by the occupier, and
therefore he proposed to insert these words, to give the
occupier the right to be placed on the burgess roll,
although he did not pay the rates.
Mr. BAINES said a most important question was in•
volved in this amendment, and one which the House
ought not to be called upon to deal with in Committee
on this Bill. The question was really such a serious one
that it deserved a separate discussion.
MIMr. DENISON thought the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Kilmarnock much too serious for the House
to adopt without the greatest deliberation.
Mr. BOUVERIE would consent to withdraw his
amendment, provided the Hon. Member (Mr. Halsey)
would withdraw the clause to which it applied.
Mr. HALSEY having consented to do that,
Mr. BOUVERIE withdrew his amendment.

Mr. REYNOLDS, before the amendment was with-
drawn, would suggest that the party claiming to be
rated should have the power of giving in evidence before
the revising barrister the value of the tenement fur
which he claimed to be rated.

In reply to a remark from Mr. LAW,
Mr. REYNOLDS said, with respect to his own case
in Dublin, he (Mr. Reynolds) did not claim to bo rated
for property belonging to another party. He (Mr.
Reynolds) was the exclusive owner of the property in
question.
The amendment of Mr. Bouverie, and the clause of
Mr. Halsey upon which it depended, were then with-
drawn.

Mr. WILD proposed a clause, to the effect that every
occupier of a tenement at a rent not exceeding 61., rated
for the relief of the poor, or toward the maintenance of
the highways, with respect to such tenement should be
allowed to deduct the sum so paid out of the rent pay-
able for the same, and that having done so, he should be
rated for such sum as if it had been actually paid to the
landlord.

Mr. B. DENISON protested against the introduction
of entirely uew clauses, such as OAF, without notice.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to call the attention
of the Hon. Member to what the effect of this clause
would be.

Colonel SIBTHORP thought they were working in
the dark altogether. . _

Sir G. STRICKLAND thought that this method of
legislation was a most mischievous one. They were
giving, in fact, the power to a vestry to legislate between
landlord and tenant.

After a few words from Mr. DENISON, the proviso
was withdrawn.

Sir J. HANMER thought that the proper title of this
Act would be, "An Act to abolish Cottages." The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night,
when he was taking off the duty from bricks, that it was
a very difficult thing to build cottages that paid. He
could bear witness to that fact, and he thought that this
Bill would have the effect of destroying cottages altoge-
ther. He had taken the opportunity of the discussion
on this clause, to state his opinion of the whole Bill.
Sir HARRY VERNEY differed from the Hon.
Member altogether in his opinion of the effect of the
chu'.

After a few words of explanation from Sir JOHN
HANMER,
Mr. SCROPE asked the Hon. Member for the West
Riding of Yorkshire (Hr. B. Denison) whether he did
not think that the proposed abolition of the duty on
bricks would more benefit the occupier than the owner
of houses? If so, and he thought he could not deny the
fact, the owner ought not t) be cor,ipelled to pay the
rates. He thought the measure would put a penalty on
the erection of houses, and thus the poor, by want of
house accommodation, would be injured rather than
benefited.

Mr. B. DENISON did not think the Bill would have
the effect of reducing the number of houses.
Mr. BROCKLERUIIST said he lived in the midst
of a dense population, and was convinced that the mea-
sure would confer great benefits upon the poorer class
of people.
The clause as amended was then a;reed to.
Clause 2 recaived some unimportant amendments and
was then agreed to.
Mr. SCII,OPE proposed to insert the following pro-
viso to the end of the clause :—" Provided always,
that the said owner shall be in no case assessed
upon a higher amount than one-half of the net
valuation of the said tenement in the rate-book."
This was not only a new law, but an ex post facto law,
while it did not extend to every class of property
holders, but only to one, and that briefly was the reason
fur his proposing this amendment.
Mr. SPOONER said the evil suggested by the Hon.
Member was admitted by every one, but he very much
doubted whether this amendment would remove it.

Mr. W. PATTEN agreed with thv principle of the
amendment, but did not think it expedient to introduce
it at this stage.
Mr. R. PALMER, opposed tho amendment, though he
felt and admitted the difficulty which it was proposed to
remedy.
Mr. C. LEWIS said the amendment raised a question
of considerable difficulty, but while he allowed that some
reduction ought to be made to the owner when the
owner and not the occupier was rated, he thought the re-
duction ought not to exceed 25 per cent.
Mr. B. DENSION knew that the owners of cottage
property were just as well able to pay the rates as any
other owners, and he could see no reason why they
should not be rated to the full value.
Lord EBRINGTON would make the landlord an
allowance, because it would always insure the payment
of the rates, whether the property was occupied or not.
Mr. SLANEY would vote against the amendment,
upon the understanding that some allowance would be
made to the owner.

Mr. P. SCROPE again reminded the Committee that
the Bill was not general, but only related to one class of
propel ty, and that, too, which interested only the poor;
still, looking at the opinion of the Committee, which
seemed to be against him, he should not press the amend-
ment.

Mr. BROTHERTON was in favour of making the
landlord some allowance.

Mr. P. SCROPE begged pardon for troubling the Com-
mittee again, but wished to remind them that when
a landlord in Ireland compounded for tithes, a reduction
of 25 per cent. was allowed to him.
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
Clause 2, as amended, was they agreed to stand part
of the Bill.