The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PA aLIAMEN T

HOUSE OF CO,iIAIOIVS. March 20
SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.
(Continu2d from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
After some conversation as to what should be under-
stood to be the signification of rateable value, the
amendments were agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER. moved the insertion of the
following proviso after clause 1 :-7" Provided always,
that no owner of any such tenement shall be ay,essed
on any higher valuation than the sum at which the
said tenement shall be let to any occupier thereof."
Mr. i3AINES objected to the proviso as being in-
consistent with what they had already agreed to.
Mr. B. DENISON also opposed it ; and
The proviso was ultimately negatived without a
division. •

. _
Mr. HALSEY proposed the following proviso:—Pro-
vided always, that in every cas?, where the owner of
such tenement shall be so rated and assessed to the rates
for the rdtielt-OF'the 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 b.) entitled t) ex-
ercise all rights, privilc and franchises whatsoever,
as fully as if his namo had originally appeared upon the
rate au the party assessed.
_ _

Mr. BOUVERIE moved the omission of all the
wards after the word " thereof," with the view of giving
the nee:spier the right to ba entered on the burgess roll.
This Bill would place the rates on the landlord; but in
point of fact they would be pant by the occupier, and
therefire 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.
Mr. DENISON thought the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Kilmarnock much too serious for the House
to adopt without the greatest deliberation.

Mr.I3OLIVERIE "would consent to withdraw his
utnondment, provided the Hon. Member (Nir. 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 for
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 (Hr. Reynolds) did not claim to be rated
for property bAouging to another party. He (Mr.
Reynolds) was the exclusive owner of the prop'-rty in
question.

The amendment of Mr. Bouv.rie, and the clause of
Mr. Halsey upon which it depended, wero then with-
drawn.
Mr. WYLD proposed a clause, to the effect that every,
occupier of a tenement at a rent not exceeding 0., 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 ti the
landlord.

Mr. B. DENISON protested against the introduction
of entirely DPW clauses, such as this, without notice.
Sir 11. 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 t 3 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 sail the ot,ier night,
when he was taking off the duty from bricks, that it was
a very difficult thing to build cottages that paid. He
coati boar witness to that fact, and he thought that this
Biii 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 wh01,3 Bid.
Sir HAIRY VERNEY differed from the Hon.
Member altogether iu his opinion of the effect of the
clause.

After a few words of explanation from Sir JOHN
HANMER,
Mr. SCROPE asked the Hon. Member for the West
Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. 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 to be compelled to pay the
ratos. 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 rathe: than
bent 3 filed.

Mr. B. DENISON did not think the Bill would have
the effect of reducing the number of houses.
Mr. BROCKLEMIRST said he lived in the midst
of a dense population, cad was convinced that the mea-
sure would confer great benefits up:m the poorer class
of people. -
Toe clause as amended was then agreed to.
Clause 2 received soa e unimpu;tant nencnent3 and
Was then agreed to.

Mr. SCriOPE proposed to insert the following pro-
viso to the end or the claus..-! :—Provido,l always,
that the said owner shall 113 in no C 3,0 assessed
upon a higher amount than onehalf t,f the net
v,,,luation of the said tenement in the rate-book
Tni3 was not only a new law, but an ex post 'clad law,
while it did not extend to evcry class of property
holders, but only to one, and that briefly WAS the reason
for his proposing this amendment.

Mr. SPOONE-11, ,aid the evil sugge3ted by the Hon.
Member was admitted by every cp., but he very much
doubted whether this amendment would remove ir,.

Mr. W. PATTEN agreed with the principle of the
amendment, but did not think it expedient to introduce
it at this stage.
Mr. H. PALMER opposed the me :lament, though he
felt and admitted the ditlmlty which it wai proposed to
remedy.

Mr. C. LEWIS said the amendment raised a question
of considerable difficulty, but while he allowed that come
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 kn:w that the owners of cottage
property were just as well able to pay the rates as any
other owners, and he could see no rea-:ou why they
should not be rated to the full value.
Lord EBRING‘EON would make the landlord an
allowance, because it would always insure Le payment
of the rates, whether the property was occupi,:d or not.
Mr. SLANEY would vote against the amendment,
upon the understanding tha; some allowance would be
made to the owner.

Mr. P. SCROPE a3atin reminded the Committee that
the Bill was not general, but only related t) one class of
property, 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 he wished to remind them that when
a landlord in Ireland compounded for tithes, a reduction
cf 25 per cent. was allowed to him.
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
. Clause 2, as amended, was then agreed to stand part
of the Bill.

On the motion that clause 3 stand part of the Bill,
Mr. WM. MILES said the clause, as it at present
stood, gave the magistrates a power of distress either
upon the owner or the occupier. He would suggest
words to the effect, that should the owner not possess
tangible property in the parish, then a power of distress
should be given upon the occupier.
After some further conversation,
Mr. MILES agreed to withdraw his amendment.
Oa the motion of Mr. HALSEY, the fAlowing
proviso was added to clause 3:—Provided always, that
such owners paying such rates in respct of tenements
continuing to. be held by occupiers under now existing
tenancies for a greater term than f 'um year to year,
shall be entitled to add what they shall so pay to the rent
payable in respect of such tenements, and have the same
remedies for recovering the same as f,r rent in arrear,
and provided farther that occupiers others than such as
stall continue to hold under now existing tenancies for a
greater term than from year to year, may (whether dis-
such rates to prevent distress)
trained upon or paying
deduct the respective amount so to be answered by them
as aforesaid, together with all costs arid charges they
may have incurred on account thereof, from tie rent
payable in respect of such tenements, and such amounts
shall be deemed debts due from such owners to such oc-
cur•
iers, and be recoverable by action.
Clause 3, as amended, was then agreed to, and made
part of the BtiL as was also clause 4. _

Mr. BAINES proposed to substit:ate the following
For clause 5 :—And ba it enacted, that the word " tene-
mmt" in this Act shall he construed to include any land,
house, cottage, apartment, or corporeal hereditament ;
tile word" owner" sh ;11 be construed to include any per-
Ban receiving or claiming the rent of such tenement for
his owa use, or receiving the same for the use of any
corporation aggregate, or of any public company, or of
any landlord or les,c): who shall ba a minor, under cover-
tare, or insane, or for the us', Of tiny person who shall not
be usually resident within 20 miles from tle parish in
which suchtenement shall be situated; the word "person"
shall be construed tai include nay corporation or public
company, as well as any individual; the word " parish"
sha,ll bey construed to include any parish, township, viii,
or place. maintaining its own poor sppara7ely; the word
m,
..„st" shs,ll ba construed to include any inK.tiog of the
inhabitant) of any smth parish, township, vi!!, or place,
to be held after due noilce for carrying int ) execution
the laces for the relief of the poor; and wherever in
,
this Act, in dascribiog any person,
nutter, or thing te
word importing the singuiar number or the nas::ulin
ender only is used, the sane shall Lio un:i4s,_ood to in-
eitaie and be applied to several persons as well as one
p9rs7,n, and females as well as males, and several maiers
or things as well as one matter or thing respectively,
unless there be something in the subject or context re-
Pugnant to such construction.
Agreed to without a division.
On the motion that clause 6 stand part of the Bill,
Mr. BAINES proposed to add the following words:—
" And shall not
.apply to any place where owners are
made liable to be rated to the relief of the poor under the
provisions of any local Act."—Agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, was then agreed to.

Clause 7 was also agreed to.
The following new clause was then brought up, and
read a first and second time, and agreed to, after some
dism:sion :—And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful
for the wary of the said parish, by a majority of two-
thirds at least cf the votes of the persons present at a
meeting duly called for that purpose, and competent to
vote thereat, at any time after the expiration Of one year
from the time when any such order shall have been so
made, to order that from and after a day to be fixed by
such vestry, being not less than two years after, such
order shall cease and be rescinded, in which case, from
and after such last-mentioned day, the said order shall
be rescinded and no longer in force. Provided never-
theless, that the provisions in this Act contained shall
remain and continue in force for the purpose of collect-
ing and recovering any rate which may have been pre-
viously made in pursuauce of such order.
Another new clause was then moved relative to the
compounding of rates for tenements whether occupied
or nk.t whereof the yearly value does not exceed 61.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved as an amendment
that the words " occupied or not" be struck out, which
amendment he contenied would nullify the clause alto.-
gethQr. _ _ .

Af,,cr a few words from Mr. Halsey, Mr. B. Denison,
and Mr. Slaney,
Mr. SPOONER said that there were two points for
the consideration of the house ; first, whether or no an
allowance should be made to an owner for comp unding
for rates ; and, secondly, whether or no an allowance
should be made on the ground of non-occupation.—
(Hear.) lie thought the allowance of one-third would be
too small—taking both considerations toget'acr, the a!-
lowance ought to be one-half.
Mr. RICE thought it much better to have a fixed
sum, and compel the landlord to compound the whole
rate.

Mr. HAWES said, there ought to be an allowance 01
a fixed per-centage.
Mr. SPOONER hoped it would not be less tha❑ one.
half.

Mr. P. MILES said the object could be attained by
inserting a few words in the clause, end he would eug-
gest that the division should be taken upon the retention
of the words " whether occupied or not."
Alr. BAINES said the present system of compounding
had very much facilitated the collection of the rates,
and he therefore submitted to his Honourable
Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, that it should
be continued in force by this Bill.
After some further discussion the clause was with-
drawn.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the
House resumed.
Mr. WALTER said, when the report was brought up,
he should take an opportunity to move an amendment,
with the view of giving power to magistrates to grant
exemptions from the payment of rates on the ground of
poverty.
LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into
Committee on this Bill,
Mr. LAW characterised the object of the Bill, in
seeking to give magistrates a summary jurisdiction
over adults in cases of petty larceny, as de-
structive of the first birthright of an Englishman—
the trial by jury. He was satisfied such a tribunal
would load with odium the magistrates, who were now
looked up to with respect by the poor, and it would be
a faeal blow to the beet franchise which an Eeglish-
men could enjoy, namely, his right of being
tried by a jury of his countrymen. lie (Mr. Law)
declared he would not hold such an office. If a jury-
man was withdrawn, and; he was called on to perform
the:duty of a jury as well as of a judge, upon the possi-
bility of forming an erroneous judgment upon facts, all
th it could tend to enable him to discharge a
public duty would be removed from his mind,
and he should have nothing but misery and anxiety.
Th s would be nothing less than a private tribunal, for
although it was not intended to shut the doors on the
public, still no gentlemen of the profession would be
present, and few persona besides those interested in the
matter. The lion. and Learned Gentleman concluded
by moving that this Bill be divided into two Bills, one
as relating to juveniles, and the other to adults.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON protested against the
course of opposition which had bt-en taken against this
Bill by the Hon. Member for Dundalk, and the Hon. and
Learned Recorder. He could assure his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Recorder that there was no greater
friend to trial by jury than he (Sir John Peking.
ton) was--(Hear, hear)—still he thought that it was
desirable to remove from the cognizance of a jury petty
offences which were not of sufficient importance for
their cognizance. It was on his (Sir J. Pakingtores)
experience, to which that Learned Gentleman had
alluded, that he had determined to bring forward this
Bill. Grand juries and quarter cessions in all parts of
the kingdom were in favour of some measure
of the sort. The Honourable Gentleman alluded
to a pamphlet lately published, called "Is Trial by
Jury worth Keeping?" which he said had no doubt in-
fluenced the opinion of many persons on this point, but
which he contended made some very important omis-
sions in the subject. He was sure that the portion of
the Bill to which his Learned Friend objected would not
be rejected by the House.
Mr. m.cuLLAGa supported the motion of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman opposite. He complained that
the llon.Baronet the Member for Droitwich had not fairly
stated the course of opposition which had been taken to
this Bill of his. If he (Mr. 1I•Cullagh) had only ten
minutes to move his amendment in, he should be able to
show such a weight of opinion against the principle of
the Bill as would fairly stneger any man. The next step
wool t he, if they peesel this Bill, to extend the principle
of no trial by jury to adults.
ST G. GREY suggested that the view of the Hon.
Me giber (Mr. Lae) would be best ,erved by withdrawing
his amendmeat, and allowing the House to go into Com-
mittee', when he could move the omiesion of the 28th
clause respecting male adults.
Mr. LAW thought it necessary to take the sense
of the House upon his amendment. The Bill involved
two distinct principles. which ought to be separately
considered, and it would be very inconvenient to do this
in Committee.
Mr. B. DENISON decidedly objected to going on
with tho Bid, because he thought it involved very
serious questions, and ought, for that reason, to
have been introduced not by a private Member,
but by the G evernment. It proposed to confer larger
powers upon the magistrates than they possessed at pro-
sent respecting the trial of adults—powers which, as a
magistrate, he declared it would be injudicious to give.
Mr. EW ART also objected to the principle of the
Bill. He could not give his assent to the new doctrine
of defining crime by the amount of money involved in it,
and the oge oF the criminal.
Mr. BERNAL said the point for the decision of the
House was whether the Bill should be considered as a

wholn, or divided into two parts. The Bill involved two

very important principles--first, the extension of the
Juv. rile Offenders' Act ; and, secondly, to abolish trial
by jury where the amount of larceny was ls.—and he
was very much inclined to agree with hia lion. and
Learned Friend the Recorder. The Bill would extend to
Great Britain and Ireland, and he knew enough of fre•
land to believe that it would be exceedingly d ngerous
and indiscreet to apply the provisions of the Bill to that
part of the kingdom, where political feeling ran so high.
—(Hear, hear.) He should, therefore, support the
amendment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. PACKE approved of the first, but was opposed to
the second principle involved in the Bill, and as the two
principles had nothing to de with each other, he was
decidedly of opinion that the measure ought to be
divided into two.--(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM. was not friendly to either of the
two portions of the Bill, and he confessed it would have
been more convenient had the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Dundalk been taken first.—(Rear, hear.)
He was really at loss ta know how to vote
on the present occasion.—(Hear, hear.) The first part
of the Bill proposed to extend the operation of the Juve-
nile Offenders' Act from 14 to 16, but he agreed with
the law as expounded by Sir Matthew Hale, and which
had prevailed since the reign of Elizabeth, that 14 was
the age at which a distinction ought to be drawn between a

juvenile and an adult offender. The second part of the Bill
propos.A to give the magistracy summary power to deal
with cases of theft where the value of the stolen property
was only Is. Now, if he had hesitated before about op-
Rising the Bill, this portion of it would have entirely
put his doubts at rest.—(Hear, hear.) He could not
give his assent to any such proposal, and he should
therefore give his support to the ameudment.—(Bear.)
Mr. SPOONER said the House had already de-
cided upon the principle of the Bill.—(No, no.) Why
it had passed the second reading, and in his view of the
matter that was tantamount to approving of the mea-
sure,—(Hear, hear.) But he was quite at a loss to
know why this Bill could be objected to. The
principle of it was already in force, with this simple
contingency, that the accused must consent to his case
being summarily disposed of ; and he should be glad to
know what objection there could be to making that
alternative rest with the discretion of the magistrate.
—(Clear, hear.) In his opinion this BM would
serve to perpetuate instead of to destroy the privilege
of trial by jury, and he should certainly give it his most
cordial supporr.—(Hear, hear.) If deterring from crime
was
the object of legislation, then he thought his Hon.
Friends Bill was eminently calculated to carry out that
object.

..Mr. HUME was much of the same opinion as the
Baronet,
Right Hon.
--aronet, the Member. for Itipownao(tSi,dr J.
Graham) with respect to this
know how they could take the sense oafridthehillo use at the
present, moment upon the principle of the Bill?
Mr. W. MILES held that trial by jury was the
palladium of liberty to the subject; at the same time if a
person was brought before the magistrates ho should
have the option of demanding to be tried .by a jury, in
ry,
which care a culprit could never say that the right to a
trial by jery had been wrested from him.
Mr. AGLIONBY characterised the motion of the
HOD. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr.
Law) as very unnecessary, and as only calculated
to trifle with the time of the House. The protection
of trial by jury wee nut talten away from :Aoki
by this Bill, seeing that a prisAaer had the option of
e.eetiee. whether he would he tried summarily or by a
jury. 'For that reason he should support the principle of
the Bill.—(Cries of "Divide.")
Mr. HENLEY said the case of those who supported
the Bill was that a party ch:trged with larceny could go
ti a jury if he liked, but what cheuce would
he have when the jury were told that he
objected to summary jurisdiction?—(Hear, hear.)
The case was fraught with difficulties. For in-
stance, a poor man might bring a number
of witnesses from distant parts of the country,
and then might be told that the magistrates intended to
deal with him summarily. This was a matter of detail,
but he objected also to the principle of the 1111.
Colonel THOMPSON said he had the least possible
confidence in what had been styled the "concurrence of
the criminal," and thought that was a subject with