The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-07 00:00:00

May 7, 1 844.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Mrt. COLVILLE'S MEASURE AND THE

LIVERPOOL BUILDERS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SIR,—In my last I endeavoured to show the unjust and
aneinstitutional character of this measure. I shall now
confine myself to its effects.
There are two points of view from which this measure,
in Its effects, must be considered—the first is as it relates
to the landlord only—assuming that he could not be able,
by any means, to reimburse himself of the rate imposed
upon him as owner. The other point of view is, as it
would operate upon the cottage tenant in case the owner
Should raise the rent to cover the projected deduction
from his profits. I shall now apply myself to the first
view of the question. I would, by the way, observe, that
this is the only point of view in which the legislature can
!A°nsider this measure. I should suppose that Mr. Colville
does not even think of the possibility of the landlord ob-
bap:lling the rate from the tenant in any way, for that would
fatal to the enactment, inasmuch as it would amount
toccupier
a declaration, that a rate upon the owner instead of the
ecuPier, would be inoperative, the legislature will there-
ore proceed upon the assumption tha the landlord only
will be affected by the impost.
The most singular feature of this measure, as regards
its operation, is its inequality. I would illustrate it thus,
A is a shopkeeper deriving from his business, say £3OO per
annum, he occupies a house which is assessed at £35, and
e Pays in poor rates upon the said house (calculating at
the present rate) £3 15s. 10d. ; B is a builder, receiving
annually £3OO in rents from cottage property, and upon
which he lives, he also occupies a house assessed at £35,
but having
to pay poor rates upon his income, as well as
tPon the house he occupies, he contributes annually to
the Poor fund £36 odd, but the income of B is, to a great
extent, nominal, he has a mortgage upon his property,
Ifhe annual interest of which is £lOO, which, deducted
i°flt the gross rent, leaves him only £2OO income. A and
then would stand thus--A with £3OO per annum to live
upon, would pay £3 15s. 10d. poor rates, while B, with
only £2OO income, would have to pay £36 odd. I protest
that I do not intend any invidious comparisons ; all I wish
is to demonstrate the obnoxious inequality which this
tewasllre would effect. The test and principle of the poor
pay
Ict is ability to pay ; yet here is one class that would
inc.) per cent• uPon his income, while another, with less
12 me, would be compelled to contribute to the tulle of
11
eper cent. I
maintain that any enactment operating so
totn. (Nally among individuals of equal means, as would
s must be radically bad. It would be a diserace to the
statute book of England, unjust ! intolerable !! But its
effects upon cottage buildings would be synonimous with
a prohibition upon that class of builders. Cottage build-
ers in this town are, to a great extent, without capital—
their ownership is almost nominal. The mortgagee is in
many cases the bona fide owner. There are scores of
Louses which, if brought to the hammer, would not realize
more than the mortgage money and expenses of sale, yet
the mortgagee, the wealthy man, would be exempt from
this rate, and the cottage builder wo,ld be the care-worn
toil-worn slave, paying a poor rate upon a portion of the
mortgagee's income, and also the taxes of his tenant.
There are peculiar burdens
upon, and difficulties belong-
ing
to, small property which many entirely overlook. As
for instance, the great wear and tear, losses from rents
and empty houses to an extent unknown to the owners of
larger property. Well, take this into
account, and add to
it the mortgagee's interest at 5 per cent., and a property
tax, and there will be no difficulty in at once concluding,
that if to all this there be superadded a poor rate UPON
THE FULL RENTAL, the days of cottage building, in this
town at least, are numbered; in fact, the sooner the
builder quit his trade the better will it. he for him, and he
will then be divested, or rather robbed, of his means of
existence. But the effects of this measure would be, in
awzi
(leases, a species of refined cruelty. Take the case of
rental of
with four or five children living upon the surplus
trines , prperty left to them by a hard-working. indus-
_ huseaond and father; a tax such as the one under
consideration would be to them, not only oppress;ve but
viellious. It has been said, that property has its duties as
it h as its rights. The converse, however, is equally true,
as its rights as well as its duties—the one equally as
sacred as the other. I denounce Mr Colville's measure,
:Lean invasion of those rights—the poor rate being a per-
Per 1, and not a property tax. The occupier is the pro-
per for a parochial a=sessment. The owner, there-
fore,nrtwh° may be holding ten cottages, would have to pay
distribs an
amount that should, by law and equity, be
uted in
alth its imposition amongst ten individuals,
not oough' in pecuniary circumstances, it may be that he is
sedulouslyne shining better than any one of his tenants. I
trust abstain from declamation, as I really dare not
sib,e mYselt to a description of the measure. Is it pos-
the'
nt.hat Mr. Colville sees as other men see? What is
and I;einne for which the cottage bwlder is to do penance
is it thadeprived of his only means of sustentation ? Why
Sion f t, he should be singled out for legislative oppres-
, ulty as •
producet s other class of
useful and as deserving as any _
the high,. I see no reason why he should be thrust from
oad of
rightt 1. industry. He has a right—a God-given
Of which°mive and to thrive by the sweat of his brow ; but
Sherbe) Colville would, it appears, (unknowingly it
Sher deprive him. I cannot, however, trespass for-
1, te:in
Your space. 1 must subj of
,bue"ag societies and the cottagereserve tenantthe ect
to your next
sh tien, if the insertion of another letter from me
00,
, ebe consistentiii h justice to your other numerous
01.1(1 intelligent correspondents.
Liverpool,
4th May, 1844. I LLAUDATUS.