The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-01-12 00:00:00

TIE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

COTTAGE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION.

A meeting of the Liverpool-Cottage Owners' Association was
held tot Wedoesilar-rrig,ht at the. Pied Brill Inn, Great Chariot te- -
street, to adopt petitions to the House of Commons in opposition
to Sir Harry Verney's rating of tenements bill, and in .support
of a bill of which notice has been given by Mr Aglionby, to •
facilitate the recovery of tenemeuts after the due determination
of the tenantcs,
Mr. E. Folio was called to the chair, and opened the busi-
ness of the evening by stating somewhat in detail the objection-
able nature of Sir Harry Verney's bill. The committee of the
association, he oh-served, since their last meeting in December,
agreeable with the instruction given them, had corresponded
with the various associations of the towns of Manchester, Bris-
tol, and Birmingham, and also the metropolitan parishes, and
it appeared by the whole to be thought desirable that petitions
should be sent from Liverpool in support of the object of the
association. And since that meeting he had receiv,ed a copy of
the contemplated act, the first clause of which made it impera•
tive on the churchwardens and overseers of every parish in Eng-„
land and Wales, and all the officers whose duty it might lie to
rate all properly of the value of £6 and downwards. That was
the first clause; and though it might not seriously affect Liver-
pool, it would affect the agricultural districts and the towns in
the neighbourhood, and he would oppose it with the same
vigour as if it affected their own town. (Hear, hear, hear.)
The second clause gave discretionary power to the guardians or
overseers of any parish that might come under the operation of
the new poor law, to rate the owners of property of the annual
value of £2O, and down to £6, instead of the tenants; and of
course when the new poor law came into operation in Liverpool,
they would he at the mercy of the guardians. .The next clause,
gave the occupier power to deduct the sums paid in rates friar
the rent. The fourth clause had the affect of disfranchising the
occupier of that description of property, and gave to the owners
the powers of which .he was dispossessed in parochial affairs.
Now, in Liverpool there were somewhere about 24,000 houses,
the occupants of which would be disfranchised by that bill; and
looking at that fact, he could not imagine why such an attempt
should be made to grind the rates out of themthough indirectly,
and then give them no voice in their disposal. That was unjust
and intolerable, and he knew not what their Reform Associa-
tion would say to it at its meeting next week, for he believed
they were to hold a meeting, praying that all should be given
an equal right to vote; but if this bill of Sir Harry V.ernev's
passed it would do away with that right in very important af-
fairs. He would venture to say, if that bill came into operation,
that the ( Cottage Owners') Association could rule the parish
affairs, in spite even of the merchants, just as they liked; but
he hoped the day would not come when the parochial affairs
would be entrusted to one set of men, as was contemplated by
the bill of Sir Harry Verney. When: that association met at
the Bell to oppose the act then in operation, it was round that
there were upwards of 11,000 nooses paying rents under £l.O per
annum, about 7500 paying £l5, and but about 3000 warehou,es
and larger houses paying higher rents; and, therefore, from that
alone, if this bill passed, it would be evident that.that very so-
eiety could take possession of the select vestries, atid they could
tlo as they liked; though he was one of the members of that so-.
ciety, he must confess that that was a power which he thought they
ought not to possess, for he would rather see the powers given
' equally to all. (Hear, hear.) Ile would call their attention to
another clause. By the fifth clause it appearad that that bill
did nut disfranchise the occupier, so far as respected the parlia-
mentary and municipal franchise, but it gave theta the privi-
lege of being rated if they demanded it, to give them the fran-
chise under the reform bill and the municipal hill; and, there-
fore, if the tenants chose to pay the rates themselves, they I
might have the privilege of voting, but if those rates were paid
through the instrumentality of the landlord, he thought they
would not be entitled to a vote. The clause in that respect was
ambiguous. The next was the sixth clause, and really if these
were the words of Sir Harry Verney, he-envied him not the
heart he possessed. for it took away the powerenjoyed by magis-
trates of exempting from the poor rates where the-parties were
in poverty. He cared not what Sir Harry Verney's politics
might be—he believed they were liberal, and a pretty specimen
of liberality it was, and after that he thought Sir Harry Verney
could scarcely return to his constituents and tell them that he
had done bll that he could to ease the burdens of the poor—(ap-
plause)—fa it was openly and palpably au attempt to crush
and grind them down. He (Mr. Ford) was not an enemy to that
party to which Sir Harry Verney belonged. nor was he entirely
with them, but he should be sorry to see those with whom lie
in any measure agreed in politics placed in the equivocal posi-
tion of supporting a bill so wrong in principle. .(Hear.) After
going through the bill of Sir 11. Verney in the way he had dune
except the explanation clause, and from the exiilanation they
had had they had heard enough to satisfy them it was bad,
thoroughly bad; he thought he might say that in Liverpool its
effects would be so injurious that the legislature had better at
once confiscate their property and transfer it ta the parochial •
board without troubling them. The bill was exceedingly
partial, and they ought not to put up with it. They were all
aware that during the time a somewhat similar bill was in
operation in Liverpool, the association formed to oppose it num- •
bered 400 members; but if this bill passed and came into
operation, he doubted not they should form an association still
greater, and that it would be formed, as the overseers made the
rates, that the rate-payers would flock to the standard of that
association. If that bill passed, he was confident every large
town would hold its meetingsao obtain its repeal; and he hoped
in Liverpool the owners of cottage property would stand firtiily•:
and determinately. (hear.) There was one circumstance he
wished to call to their minds respecting the operation of that
bill, and it was one they ought not to neglect on that occasion.-
They were aware that the landlords became severe in enforcing
their rents, and that increased the rates, until the inhabitants of '
the town preferred to have the bill repealed. And it would be•
fresh in their recollection that when they were considering the
necessity, the absolute necessity, of convincing the parochial
authorities that they had the power to double or treble the rates,
that it was contemplated, and God forbid that lie should ever see
it done, to distrait upon every tenant who was in arrear with
his rent; and out of front 10,000 to 12.000 tenants at least 8,000
were in that condition. What, then, would have been the con-
sequence? Why, that from six •to seven thousand families—
not persons—or probably more, for there were two and some-
times three families huddled together in some of those houses,
would be thrown on the parish ; and where would be the saving
then by that act of parliament? Why, instead of Is. 91. in the
pound, as.at first, the rate became 75.; Sr., and even 10s. in. the
pound. They said at fit st that the attempt was a dangerous one,
and nosy the question arose whether they should submit to this
new bill or make a united and determined struggle against it.
He trusted they would do all in their power to prevent Sir
Harry Verney's bill being carried. It would appear that ea-
- tages were an eye-sore to the upper classes, but he trusted that
the meeting would do all it could to protect the working classes,
who were the back-bone of Englund. (Great applause.) . •
Mr. Muanow, Jun., then, at the request of the chairman,
read the following
Report of the committee of the " Liverpool House and Cottage

Owners' Associatit,n."

The committee, appointed by the members of this association'
at a meeting held on the Ist day of December last, alter a care-
ful and diligent reading of Sir Harry Vernev's bill, have conic
unanimously to the following conclusions.
Firstly,—That the bill in its principle is partial and unjust,
affecting the vested rights of the owners of property within its
sphere, and will also prove highly injurious and arbitary to the
tenant ; partial as affecting one class of landlords only, making
a distinction where none ought to exist, and for which no pre-
cedent can be found, in taxing that part of the property which
before they held tree, untaxed, and uncontrolled ; unjust, as it
will compel the owner to pay his tenants' rates whether he re-
ceives them or not.
Secondly,—That this bill, by its stern and dictatorial legis-
lation to the owner, precludes the remotest chance of any lenity
being shown to a tenant who may happen to be in arrears • its
effect will destroy all kind, benevolent, and generous feeling,
which communication and acquaintance gives birth to, and
cements, such as subsists between landlora and tenant, it being
out of the common nature of things, that any one can so far for-
get his self-interest, or the duties he may owe to his family, us
to forget rent due, with the fact staring him in the face, that
•he must pay the defaulteis' mates also. Let any on., judge of the
extreme hardship of this case, it will be no better than filched
from his pocket by a legislation to which he is opposed, and
considers partial and unjust. It is a well known fact, that in
times of depression of trade, infectious disorders, domestic
cala-
mities or bereavements, that the owners of property within the
operation of this bill, have not only forgiven rent due, but have
sympathized with, and assisted their poor unfortunate tenants.
Will they, if compelled, by such an unfeeling:, dogmatical, and
dictatorial bill, to pay, and at the same time to be reconciled
to their loss, will they sympathise and assist? No. Their
kinder feelings will be turned into bitterness and severity, and
the poor tenant, urged by his goaded landlord, will be driven to
take the most repugnant course to an honest mind, the relie
due to a pauper by his parish. • • •
Thirdly,—This committee are convinced, that the bill in
question will put a stop the further erection of tenements
adapted for the poor, and-the result may easily be foreseen, the
rents of the buildings now erected will be raised, in many cases.
too high for the poor artisan to pay, his family will consequently
be driven to some loathsome cellar or dilapidated garret, or
perhaps .to.herd with others equally as destitute : crime wilt by
this means find endless resources to fill her ranks and pander to
her wants.
Fourthly,—This committee are assured, and fearless of any
contradiction or inquiry, state, that if the owners of the descrip-
tion of property named in this bill are compelled to pay their
tenants' rates, double the amount of the expectant rates will be
added to the rents, so as to enable the landlord to cover his losses.
This can be better shown by an-example f the tenant of No.
1 pays his landlord's demand, and the tenant at No. 2 does not,
the owner will not lose, because he has added to the rent of No.
1 double the rates; thus the honest will be made to pay the debts
of the idle, profligate, and dissipated. The glaring injustice
needs not to be shown. The owner will be excused and excul•
paled by all men —the blame only being attached to and arising
from, the operation of an unjust and tyrannical act of parlia-
ment.
Fifthly.—lt appears to this committee very unjust that the
owners of property, who run the greater risk, are more exposed
to insult, labour, andlosses in the collection of their rents, should
be compelled to collect the parochial rates, when owners of large
property, not subject to any such rates, the • returns from which
are in all cases more certain, and attended with less labour
in the collection, should be exempt. This distinction they
cannot look upon but with feelings of repugnance, jealously,
and deep indignation, as a distinction highly injudicious and im-
politic.
Sixthly,—This committee are fully and recently acquainted.
with the operations of an act, in its effects similar to one now
under theireonsideration. It was a bill procured about seven years
ago for this parish. In the firstyear of its working, therates were
raised from is 9d to 2s 6d the second year. It was afterwards
repealed by the unanimous consent of the most numerous vestry
meeting ever held in Li'.erpoot, and at the expense of the parish.
It caused poverty to become unexampled, landlords severein the
extreme. continual opposition and bickerings, andan odium last-
ing and unforgotten.
• Seventhly,—The committee beg leave to state, that they have
acted upon the suggestion given them as to corresponding with the
associations in of her towns. from which they hope to effect a unity
of purpose and a strength of operation, and they recommend
that a deputation be sent to London to assist other deputations
from other towns. •
Eighthly,—The .committee cannot sufficiently express their
indignation at the.attempt now making by this hill to rob the
owner of property within its operation, by a partial confiscation
of their property for the parochial rates, and they recommend
that a petition be. sent to the House of Commons, praying for
a rejection of the bill.
Mr. KN APPER, the treasurer to the association, then rose to
move the first resolution, together with those subsequently agreed
to, and the sevemal petitions, will be found in our advertising
columns. He said, after what had fallen from the chairman, in
his very able address to that meeting, he could have but very
little to say. But of that most hateful, and detestable, and pesti-
ferous bill he roust beg permission to make one or two. remarks.
In time first place;_then, he would venture to state that it was un-
just in prineiple—(hear, hear)—inasmuch as it makes one la iv
for one description of persons and another for the other. (liear.)
Equal laws and equal jnstive ought to be dispensed to all men
indiscriminately—(hear, hear)—but in that this bill failed.
Again, it was inquisitorial : it looked into the innermost recesses
of every man's
.property and every mark's interests ;a nd, inas-
muCh as it did that. he most unequivocally stated that it was in-
quisitorial, and that assn it was onviinstitutional, and broke
iato the original constituted lag of the coontry—(
Ire might addi that it was opprerkive, and. ground to the very

vitals the subsistence of the poor. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
That most extraordinary bill had been often brought into the
House of Cominotis anterior to this time, and as often repulsed;
and hO h.iVe. that its repulsion would have been a
clear reason why Sir Harry Verney should not again have pre-
suined to introduce it. It was clear that all its godfathers had
.been tired with the sight of it; and 'after the repeal of the act,
some time since in operation in Liverpool, which in its working
was.so extraordinary, as their chairman had stated, having in-
creased the poor rates in three years full 31 per cent—he should
have thought, after that exarripe, no-man in the House of Coin-
mops would haYe brought forward a general measure for the I
whole county. (Hear. hear.) Immediately, however, after
the repeal of that act, Mr. Slaney, forsooth—
The CHAIRMAN.—NO, not after, but while it was in operation. •
Mr. KNAPPEIt.—WeII, the necessity of repealing the Liver-
pool act was then made most evident, at all events; and imme-
diately on that necessity being made evident, Mr. Slaney brought
in a general measure; but it was cut off, not in the bud, but
when it was coming out; for it had got into committee. 'Atter
him Lord Althorp mooted another question of the same nature;
the Earl of Darlington followed hint: and Sir Harry Verney,
in the last session of the last parliament, hi-Ought in this mea-
sure. The pretension for creating so unwise and unjust a law
is thii—that the landlords of small property get greater rents
than those of large property, therefore they could better afford,
to pay the rates; but that was a most erroneous idea. There
was always competition in building that sort of property, if
anything could be got out of it, so that the rents were kept at a
moderate level, as their experience taught them. It was well
known that all that had built small property had not got rich,
and the holders had not made fortunes, therefore it showed that
meeting that that reasoning was erroneous. It' it was at all
proper that cottages should be assessed, and they were at this
moment, it was equally right that the rates should be collected
on the premises. It was constitutional that it should be so; and
at the time when we had a most expensive and protracted war,
and the property tax was obliged to be laid on, the tax was col-
lected immediately from the tenants. Suppose that a house of
£2O a year paid £3 in taxes, the landlord would net £27 ; but
if the tax was collected front the landlord, and he lost his rent.
it made a difference to him of £6. He would in that be £33
out of pocket. So much for that as a constitutional measure.
Again, the magistrates had the power to remit the rates where
they saw that the parties were in poverty and distress; hut the
magistrates under the proposed law would have no power to re-
lieve the poor arid distressed, if an exorbitant rent were charged
to cover the rates ; and if in the event of that rent being unpaid,
the landlord distrained the tenant, the tenant must eventually
become a pauper on the parish with all. his family. (Hear.)
They all knew by experience that cottage property was not the
best that could possibly be, and he would ask Sir Harry Verney,
or any other man that supported that unaccountable measure,
what interest they ought to receive for their investments? The
sum of £lOO doubled itself in fourteen years, and the capital
was no worse; but in fourteen Years of-constant wear and tear
the dilapidations of cottage property required that it be nearly
rebuilt.—(Hear.) Let Sir Harry Verney look at that and see
whether cottage property yielded the remuneration that larger
property did. No; and he would also find that the larger Fro-
perty was more secure and less subject to dilapidations. The
,object of that bill was to extract from' the pockets of the cot,.
tage owners and spare the owners of large property. Previous
to the repeal of the Liverpool act, he had four cottages, and in
four years he did not receive a penny ftcm them, and they cost
him the value of one to put the four in repair, and he was pay-
, inwpoor-rates for that property three years out of the four. He.
would next come to the owners of that description of property
who were executors, trustees, or devisees for orphan children.
The property perhaps was deeply mortgaged before the death
of the parent, and the trustee under that executorship had not
• wherewith to maintain that family.. He_would come also to the
ownership of a widow's, and perhaps in that case, too, the pro-
perty was deeply mortgaged, and that widow and her children,
perhaps, were in deep distress and great want ; they must inevi-
tably come to the parish, and the property would be confiscated
or walled up. That was a sort of pauperism which would be
produced if that hateful bill were made the law of the land.
He came then to the disfranchisement clause, although as their
chairman had stated, he was not quite clear as to the meaning of
it; but this was clear, that it would throw the occupants into the
hands of the landlords, and the landlords would have the power
to waver the tenants as they pleased to their own way of voting;
therefore, he said, out 'Vic-ground's, he felt him Self Called upon
to give this hill his most decided and determined opposition. In
the next place, as to the occupancy of these hitusesif that bill
passed into a law, the occupants of those houses would be
thrown into damp cellars, and large and dilapidated houses
where half a dozen families live together, perhaps, and
where were effluvia and contagious diseases, and from which
great and serious evils would arise. They would not only be
thrown into damp cellars, but be huddled together in oue apart-
ment. He had known a man and his wife, with ten children,
living, in a cellar in one apartment, in which there was but one
'bed for the whole. Look at the contamination of moral prin-
ciple that arose from that state of things, as in former times,
conseqUent on a bill of this sort passing; into a law. Forty-five
' years ago he remembered, in this town, that the tide flowed so
high as to flood the cellars, and perstSns lost their lives in con-
sequence; they had no resourse but the .cellars at that time,
• and remembered the cellars letting at 2s. 6d..and 3s. a-week for
one apartment only, and even as high as ss. and 6s. where any-
thing could be done in the way of a little business, in conse-
quence of being situated in front. Since then cottage property
had been erected—decent little dwellings of four apartments
in which the members of the family might retire to rest in zepa-
•rate apartments. and thereby the moral evil of indiscriminate
admixture in one apartment was wholly removed. He would
not longer detain the meeting. What had fallen from the chair-
man was. ably urged upon them, and the report of the coin-
.mittee was of so comprehensive a nature, that he need say no
more on the subject; but he' did warmly contend that that bill
was a' hateful measure, and he hoped that theirassociation, and
the association of every town in the kingdom, would set their
faces against and prevent its passing into a law. (Applause.)
Mi. JONES seconded the motion, and it was carried unani-
mously,

The petition which appears in our advertising columns was
then read and adopted.
The other resolutions were also prefaced by able speeches
from Mr. Ellis and Mr. Henshaw ; and a very interesting debate
succeeded, in the course of which many exceedingly strongargu-
Inents. were urged against Sir Harry Verney's bill.
The'Cii A I RAI AN then introduced to the notice of the' meeting
the bill of Mr. Aglionby, to facilitate the recovery of possession
of tenements after due determination of the tenancy, and a pe-
tition in its favour was adopted.
A subscription was then entered into to defray the necessary
expenses attendant on the opposition of the association to the
bill, and a vote of thanks was then given to the chairman for
his conduct in the chair, and the meeting was dissolved about
half-past nine o'clock.