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

May 7, 1544.

CORRESPONDENCE.

LIVERPOOL BUILDERS.

Mlt. CoLvILLE,B mil:Akeßf2,_ANi) THE

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
`Neu,—ln my last I endeavoured to show the unjust and
buclnetitutional 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
„ Pnrl, him as owner. The other point of view is, as it
"Would,loperate upon the cottage tenant in case the owner
'nnil raise the rent to cover the projected deduetion
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
consider this measure. I should suppose that Mr. Colville
„,d(:'es not even think of the possibility of the landlord ob-
`aming the rate from the tenant in any way, for 'hat would
be fatal to the enactment, inasmuch as it would amount
toae declaration, that a rate upon the owner instead of the
occupier, would be inoperative, the legislature will there-
for proceed upon the assumption th.t the landlord only
Will be affected by the impost,
The most singular feature of this measure, ag regards
its operation, is its inequality. I would illustrate it thus,
A is a shopkeeper deriving from his business, say £3OO per
Znnani, he occupies a house which is assessed at £35, and
PRY, In poor rates upon the said house (calculating at
e Present rate) £3 15s. 10d. ; B is a builder, receiving
annually £3OO in rents from cottage property, and upon,
'eh he lives, he also occupies a house assessed at £35,
out having to pay poor rates upon his income, as well as
Jon the house he occupies, he contributes annually to
Poor fund £36 odd, but the income of B is, to a great
extent, nominal, he has a mortgage upon his property,
fthe annual interest of which is £lOO, which, deducted
only
intrinletnhe gross rent, leaves him only £2OO income. A and
upon :an, ld stand thus- •A with £3OO per annum to live
2doo inennu,
Pay £3 15s. 10d. poor rates, while B. with
, would have to pay £36 odd. I protest
o not intend any invidious comparisons; all I wish
is to demonstrate the obnoxious inequality which this
measure would effect. The test and principle of the poor
law act is ability to pay ; yet here is one class that would
pay l per rent. upon his in-ome, while another, with less
income, would be compelled to cont-ibute to the tune of
12 per cent. I maintain that any enactment operating so
Unequally among individuals of equal means, as would
this, must be radically bad. It would be a disgrace 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
houses 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 w0..1d be the care-worn
toil-worn slave, paying a roor 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, smsll 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
rnortga
tatrtgheer Property. Well, take this into account, and add to
gee's interest at 5 per cent., and a property
that and there will be no difficulty io at once concluding,
rif to all this there be superadded a poor rate UPON
toHivE "
fee n'eNTAL, the days of cottage building, in this
n a" 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
renta
-many cases, a species of refined cruelty. Take the case of
a widow with four or five children living upon the surplus
of property left to them by a hard-working. indus-
trious husband and father ; a tax such as the one under
consideration would be to them, not only oppressive but
wel'i°llB- It has been said, that property has its duties as
it ,
aess. its rights. The converse, however, is equally true,
:_acredn
edits rights as well as its duties—the one equally as
s as the other. I denounce Mr, Colville's measure,
atal invasion of those rights—the poor rate being a per-
tson, and not a property tax. The occupier is the pro-
err object for a parochial assessment. The owner, there-
in %tveth° may be holding ten cottages, would have to pay
amount that should, by law and equity, be
ttlthonted, in its imposition amongst ten inividuals,
sedolonue
not 0 gh, in Pecuniary circumstances, it may bed that he is
trust
Bible th. seit
'shilling better than any one of his tenants. I
Y abstain from declamation, as I really dare not
to a description of the measure. Is it pos-
the •at Mr. Colville sees as other men see? What is
is tha.t he
and be
for which the cottage builder is to do penance
's"9tn deprived of his only means of sustentation ? Why
should be singled out for legislative oppres-
sion, fully as useful and as deserving as any other class of
the highroad
I see no reason why he should be thrustfrom
rigetZtoro,ad of industry. He has a right—a God-given
of ;eh; 'lye and to thrive by the sweat of his brow ;
.bu.tt
may ch Mr. Colville would, it appears, (unknowingly
the be) deprive him. I cannot, however, trespass fur-
buildin" your space. 1 must reserve the subject of
I:Public g societies and the cottage tenant to your next
siVatie consist insertion of another letter from me
,nid beent with justice to your other numerous
Lsverpool, 4th May,
and
intelligent correspondents.
1814. ILLAUDATUS.