The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-22 00:00:00

WATER COMpANIE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sut,—E take the opportunity of directing your
attention, and also that of your readers, to some
few facts connected with the supply of water to a
great number of the, inhabitants of this part of
the town, and other parts, by the Lambeth
Water Company. In the early part of last week
I received a notice from the aforesaid Company
to the, effect that, from and after Michaelmas
Day next, the sum of four shillings per annum
would be added to the present amount paid for
water to the Lambeth Company. The present
payment, I beg to mention, is 1/. 4s. for an eight-
roomed house, making, with the addition, 1/. Bs.
In an adjoining parish, for a house with the same
number of rooms, of the same rent, but a diffe-
rence of only 2/. in the rating, less than two years
ago only 1/. was the demand, showing an in •
crease in that time of nearly forty per cent.
Some time sine the Vauxhall Company offered
to supply water at a less snarl than the Lambeth
Company, and even to find pipe from the main
to the cistern for an agreement to have the water
from them for three years, and a number of
their customers availed themselves of the reduc-
tion; but as regards myself, having been supplied
by the Lambeth Company for ten years with
good water, at a reasonable and fair price, I (lid
not think I should be acting fairly in leaving the
old Company for the new. I mention this fact,
because since that period there has been an un-
derstanding, entered into by the Lambeth, Vaux-
hall, and Southwark Water Companies, to supply
water at the same price—thus making the old
customers of the Lambeth Company the victims
of agreed monopoly.
I should not have troubled you, Mr. Editor,
on this subject, but as it will- affect the pockets
of some thousands, I think it necessary that the
attention of the public should be called to the
subject, in case it may be the intention of other
Water Companies to resort to this unjust exac-
tion for the payment, I suppose, of the Income-
tax on their shares, charging the public at least
20 per cent, to pay three.
A HOUSEHOLDER.
St. John's, Lambeth, Sept. 21,1842.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT ACT

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR—In the early part of last year, 1841, a
maderrees-ivdaeluaitnionpuwrassuanceof “ the Act 6th and 7th
Will. of the parish in which I
reside, in
cap. 9, passed 19th of August, 1836,
to regulate parochial assessments."
On examining the re-valuation, and comparing
it with the Circulars issued by the Poor-law
Commissioners, containing instructions to carry
the provisions of the Parochial Assessment Act
into operation, I felt persuaded that the re-valua-
tion was not made conformably to law, and, as a
consequence, that assessments made under it
would be illegal, as well as partial and unequal. I
therefore, as a sufferer, endeavoured to obtain a
revision thereof, at the hands of the parishioners
in the first place ; failing in this I appealed under
the 6th clause of the said Act, to the Justices at
the said 6th
isl
ucs
ih v
edecision
up on (of the Justices)
binding the parties, unless
Petty Sessions, who, upon an examination of our
rating saw sufficient reason to quash the rate
against which the appeal was laid,
iiclauseni ng • and c
making
i oc
"such
impugned within fourteen days." No objection
being made to this " decision" within the time
limited or subsequently, I concluded; accord-
ingly, that I had obtained the relief applied for.
My conclusions, were, however, erroneous, the
thing was too good to be given up by the parties
interested, and within a month another rate was
made upon precisely the same rentals. This was
forthwith approved by one Magistrate, whose
own rates were objected to in the notice of appeal,
and subsequently by another gentleman residing
at a distance, these two Justices acting separately
(although the usual custoin,where two approvers
are required, is that they act in each other's
presence), thus virtually rendering nugatory the
"decision" of their brethren of the same bench
sitting at petty sessions. To appeal again, and
perhaps go the same round, was useless; a
remedy must be obtained elsewhere, or the in-
justice must be borne, and I therefore determined
to apply to the Poor-law Commissioners, as the
contract. for this valuation had been made under
their authority, in pursuance of the powers
vested in them by the before-mentioned Act,
particularly the 3d clause ; and it being stipulated
in this Act, that the valuation to be made under
it was to have no effect until their approval
thereof, and they having issued precise instruc-
tions how the same was to be made, I again con-
cluded they would at least see that their own in-
structions were complied with before affixing
their official seal. Besides, I found no individual
could deal effectually with irregularities running
though a whole parish ; if his own wrong was
amended, lie perhaps cast an undue burden upon
others, where the whole was incorrect, andas the
preamble of the Act quoted states, " it is desir-
able to establish an uniform mode of rating." I
thought where there was reason to believe a ge-
neral error prevailed, was precisely the case
which the Legislature had in view to deal with
by establishing responsible public. ()Seers as the
conservators of the law. On these grounds; after
finding a successful appeal to the Magistrates
was no protection from a repetition of the wrong,
I addressed the Commissioners, giving examples
of the unequal operation of the valuation ; in
reply they state, " that my very careful arid
clear statement of the facts would show, sup-
posing my figures to be correct, that some
general defect exists in the valuation referred
to," but that the only provision which the law
had made for correction "was the costly and
troublesome one of appeal." This I had already
experienced was no remedy, and I rejoined by
saying this " general defect" never could, or ought
to have existed, if' an examination had been
wade, betbre their approval had been given, and
that the correctness of my " figures), could be
ascertained by means within their reach. Upon
this the Commissioners gave me to understand
that by their approval ofa valuation
" they only
declare that the requirements of' the Parochial
Assessment Act, and of their instructions, so far
as respects the form of the document,, have
been complied with." Now, Sir, this is the point
to which I entreat your attention, How many
parishes may have been re-valued under the Act
quoted, or how many of them
may have a domi-
nant interest from which Guardians
are chosen,
and Justices are attached, .1 have no means of
knowing; but I apprehend some six or seven
millions are raised annually by rates, to support
the whole machinery of which the Poor-law
Commissioners are the heads; and it may, per-
haps, be useful for some of your readers to learn
that these heads only hold_ themselves respon-
sible for the correctness of the "form» by
which
this enormous sum is collected. Let no Poor-
rate payer, therefore, conceive that a fine book
with gold letters and a great seal, is its any autho-
rity for the correctness of contents. On the
contrary, it will operate as an
.additional bar to
his obtaining relief; if lie feels himself aggrieved,
by giving an official appearance to what may be
thoroughly incorrect, while to the general statis-
tical inquirer, and to the public in general,
valuations so conducted must be worthless.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Sept. 19, 1842. A RATE.F,A...x,
ER.

on making his returns, observed
THE INCOME-TAX.—The ignorance in matters of
cbruosuins.essAofboosokmseelolefr,the persons who have been ap.
pointed assessors under this Act is positively ludi-
to the assessor that advertisements would, of course,
come under the " necessary expenses of busino4,,,n
" Certainly not," replied the worthy functionary, " I
do not see that a bookseller can employ I& income
letter than in 03Tertising: