The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-21 00:00:00

IM PERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 20.
SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. BAINES did not agree with the Honourable
Gentleman who had just sat down. At present a
great many cottages were let upon the supposition that
the tenant was to be exempt from the payment of the
rates, and, upon the faith of that representation, the
landlord always succeeded in getting higher rent. Now
the poor mttra did not benefit by it, but there was no
doubt that the general public did. What was proposed
to be done by this Bill had not yet been dis-
tinctly conveyed to the House. It was no compul-
sory .measure rendering all owners liable to be rated,
but simply permissive, and in his opinion the Bill did
not go far enough. By Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act power
was given to vestries to exempt the tenants of small
occupations, varying from 201. down to 6/. per annum,
from the rates, and imposing them upon the landlord,
and what this Bill proposed to do was to get rid
of the minimum. On looking at the Bill, however, he
saw that the power was confined to two-thirds of the
vestry—that was two-thirds of the vestry must consent
to the provisions of the Bill being put in force before
the mode of rating could be changed, but he thought
the matter ought simply to be left with
the majority. It bad been said this rating the owners
of small tenements in Liverpool had proved a failure.
Now, he did not know the circumstances of this parti-
cular case; but, since the local Act passed, many other
towns had applied for similar Bills, and in Kiddermin-
ster the experiment had been most successful.—(Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON had heard, with great satisfac-
tion, what had been said by the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down, and it was decidedly his inten-
tion to give his support to the second reading of
this Bill. Ever since he had been in Parliament
ta Bill relating to small tenements;_ and a Bill
on the subject of the highways had been an-
nually introduced, but he hoped now both those ques-
tions were likely to be disposed of.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to the rating of small tenements at present there
was a great inequality and great injustice, and he was
glad therefore that this Bill had been introduced, but it
ought to be made compulsory and not permissive.
_The vestry was the last body to whom he would entrust
the carrying out of such a measure as this, and as Par-
liament was now convinced of the necessity of a change
in law, why not make the Bill compulsory at once 2—
(Hear, hear.) Another suggestion he would make
for its improvement was that the compounding
Clause which had been found to work well should be in-
troduced into it, but all these things were matters of
detail' which could be disposed of in Comiaiittee.—(Hear.)
Stir GEORGE PECHELL had always voted against
a measure of this description, but now he thought there
was good reason for giving his support to the Hon.
Gentleman opposite, who certainly deserved great credit
for having introduced it.— (Hear , hear.)
Mr. ROBERT PALMER said it was the desire of
every landed proprietor to provide comfortable dwellings
for the poor, and to a certain extent the provisions of
this Bill -were now in operation. He could see no
reason therefore for opposing it. (Hear, hear.)
He did not mean to offer any further opposition to the
measure; bat he must say when the Bill went into Corns
mittee, it would be his endeavour to insert a clause to
provide that a man shall not pay rates upon any greater
sum than he paid rent. There was a growing
opinion in the country in favour of this mea-
sure, though he could not help considering
that it was intended to'operate as an ex post facto mea-
sure, to bring a certain class of persons within the obli-
gation to pay rates who had hitherto escaped.
SHAFTO ADAIR supported the Bill. He
thought that the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman
with regard to the making the receiver of the rent
chargeable with the rate was a reasonable one. Passing
over the difficulties which existed in the country in regard
to property of this description, he would refer to a case
which had come within his knowledge, showing the ex-
ceeding hardship that arose to the poor in these cases.
He held in his hand a statement having reference to the
county of Cambridge, showing that in the year
ending M:chaelmes, 1846, a sum of about
453/. was in arrear from the occupiers of certain
small tenements. They were summoned for the
rates before the magistrates, distress warrants were
issued against them, and the consequence was, that the
occupiers were put to about 781. for expenses, or about
17/. per cent. on the amount of the rates. Now, a case
of that hardship would nut have occurred had the rates
been levied on the landowners inste al of the occupiers.
Mr. DFEDES supported the Bill. His experience
was, that it very often happened that it was not the
poor industrious man who was exempted by the over-
seers ; but it commonly turned out that the people so
exempted were men of idle and irregular habits ; and
further, when the cases came before the petty sessions
to be confirmed as the law required, they should be with
the concurrence of the overseers, upon investigation it
frequently turned out that the reason that they could
not pay the rates was, that they paid so exorbitant a rent
for the very houses for which they were assessed.
r. SLANEY said, instead of the Bill being likely
to be prejudicial to the working classes, be
thought it would be highly beneficial to them. It
frequently occurred in places where the working
classes were receiving good wages, a specula-
tive builder came and ran up a number
of small miserable cottages, and thus brought
in a fresh inundation of paupers, who became competi-
tors in the labour market with the independent labourers,
and brought down their wages. Such a system as
that, instead of being a benefit to the labouring classes,

was a positive evil- to them. He did not - sly he
wished to interfere with such building specula-
tions, but he asked the House not to give
a bonus to them. The owner of small tenements in large
towns and their suburbs was invariably the man who
resisted all sanitary measures, or such as tended to ame-
liorate the condition of the poor. This Bill would ten
to put a stop t) the selfishness of the landlord class, and
therefore it had his cordial support.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that unless they supported
this Bill they would be making a great mistake. He
had always had the greatest confidence in the Hon.
Member for Hull, who gave his assistance to this Bill,
and unless they carried it through they would be, in his
opinion, taking a great step towards reducing the fran-
chise.—(Hear.)
Mr. BAINES said that the question of the franchise
ought in such a matter as this to be left totally untouched,
and read an extract from the Reform Act to show that
the franchise was not affected by a refusal of the Bill.
He should, therefore, vote against the Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS said that there was evidently a mis-
apprehension respecting this Bill. It proposed to exempt
certain buildings from the poor-rate, and the principle
adopted seemed to be to exempt such buildings as were used
for the purpose of getting a living. He had taken the
opinion of eminent counsel upon the effect of the Bill,
and that was entirely against its working utility.—
(Hear, hear.) He bad himself been rated for a counting-
house, and yet his vote had been impeached simply be-
cause it did not look like a counting-house. He had in-
quired, on -taking the place, whether any rates were due,
and was told there were not; and he was shown the books,
by which anch appeared to be the case. But, after all, it
turned out that this acknowledgment was only what they
called in Ireland a paper receipt—(Laughter)—and con-
sequently his vote was impeached.—(Hear, hear.) It
might seem somewhat impertinent in him to speak upon
a Bill which only affected England and Wales, but Hon.
Members on both sides of the House, who were only
English Members, had continually interfered in the at-
fairs of Ireland, and had spoken as if they meant
o minister to all their social diseases on the other
side of the water.—(" Hear, hear," and laughter.)
He did mot complain of such quack doctoring. On the
contrary, he felt much obliged to them for it, and was
only anxious that they should not, by the adoption of
this Bill, reduce the franchise. It might not affect the
rural districts, but by taking the small tenements in cor-
porate towns out of the rate-book they would be cutting
eff a large and very useful class from their political pri-
vileges.—(" Hear, hear, and cries of "Divide, divide.")
Mr. BRIGHT said that he had received a long and
very valuable communication from a body of persons
who were deeply interested in the security and extension
of the franchise, and from that it appeared that the
throwing the payment of the rates into the hands
of the landlords would have the, effect of greatly
reducing the number of persons at present en-
titled to vote for Members of Parliament.—(Hear.)
As far as it was connected with rates this Bill would
give great facility to the collectors, but that was no rea-
son why this measure should be hurried through the
House, which would lead to such &treat extent of dis-
franchisement. He should wish to know from the Go-
rrnment whether, r the House consented to the second
reeding of the Bill, and if any suggestions for the ob-
viating of this objection should be proposed in Com-
mittee, the Government would oppose those amend-
ments?
Sir G. GREY would b. very sorry to give counte-
nance to any measure which would have the effect of de-
priving any man unjustly of his franchise.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY would support the second reading of
the Bill, if it were persevered in, on tlas principle that
this Bill would allow each neighbourhood to adapt
the measure to its own energies. He certainly
agreed with the Hon. Member for Berkshire, that the
House was beginning to alter the incidents of taxation
in a way that would affect the poor.
Mt. HASTIE having replied,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and a division
took place, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority —lBo
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
be committed.
BENEFICES IN PLURALITY BILL.
Mr. FREWEN, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, said ke should not detain the House at any length, since
a return which was obtained last year by the Hon. Member
for Montrose made out a strong case in its favour.
That return showed that subsequently to the passing,
of the last Act on this subject no less than 189 clergy-
men had ;been presented to two livings, and he there-
fore called upon the House to affirm the principle
of this Bill, and declare the existing law was
not sufficiently stringent. He had no objection
to keteegyinan enjoying two livings that adjoined each
other, and where the populations were small. This Bill
he introduced Tat session, but there was no time for
passing it, and hey taken the earliest opportunity of re-
viving it this year. Since it had been brought in he had
received many communications from different parts of
the country pointing out the abuses that existed under
/ Isstsl Afi present system, and the necessity there was for a
tring,ent law upon the subject.
441 f --"r.-....-•
' v• -e LANEY asked if the Bill was prospective or
to~", / 7'i'.7:l - 7,e...2 ei;ye.
---.
1::X WEN said it was prospective.
" --1-1.%-qc, ).,v,ki, • GREY was understood to say it was his wish
7z411.,!,: zuatitattf.nrc the Bill went into Committee some little
•e s'-eee , • hstu I
ld elapse, in order to enable him to consider and
--4,,
' ..,,, ,
.. ,:t.._
___,,i
,
- NI- 0