The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-08-08 00:00:00

ATTACK ON MR. PARKS t,

Mr. PARKER said it would ''be recollected that Mr.
Cooper. upon the last day, had accused him of squan-
deringthousands of the public money.
The MAYoß.—Nobody, I. am sure, would accuse Mr.
Parker of anything of the kind.
Mr. PARKER.—What Mr. Cooper may say, sir, may be
of very little weight, but I call upon him to substantiate
what he has said, or I shall move for a committee to in-
quire and report. I shall not have my private character
taken away, because a worthy and bulky alderman
(loud laughter) 'may choose to attack me ; and I call
upon him to retract, or I shall move for a committee to
investigate.
Mr. COOPER.—I should :be exceedingly sorry, sir, to
cast any reflection on Mr. Parker, for every one knows
that he has done all in his power to press down expendi-
ture ; but I was under the impression that the street
cleansing contract might have been taken for £2,000 or
£3,000 less. -1. hive no hesitation in saying that I made
no charge against Mr. Parker. He did the best for the
public, and with the very best motives. (Hear.)
The MAYOR.—I. do not think that Mr. Cooper imputed
the slightest improper motives. (Hear, hear.)

THE RATING OF THE DOCKS AND CORPORATE ESTATE

The TOWN-CLERK read the report of the Special Corn-
mitteg 9.11 local rate*. The following are the principal
features :

"That it appeared to the Committee from the statements
of the deputation of the Select Vestry, that the Poor-rate
then in course of collection for the parish of Liverpool was
three shillings •in the pound, and the Church-rate one
penny, and that upon the whole assessment about 75 per
cent. is collected, but that no attemptis made, except un-
der special circumstances, to recover the rates upon pro-
perty valued at and under £l2 per annum.
" That of the local rates levied by the Council and col-
lected by their own officers, about the same per centzge
upon the whole assessment is collected.
4. The Committee make the following recommenda-
tions to the•Couneil

" 1. That all private property should bear its fair pro-
portion of the local taxation, and, to effect this object,
that the owners of all such property should be rated, care
being taken, by suitable provisions, to preserve the elec-
tive franchise, where that franchise depends upon rating
and payment of rates.
" 2. That the principle of rating the property of Muni-.
cipal Corporations has been already reco4nised by the Le-
gislature by the passing of the General Act, 4th and sth
Victoria, cap. 48, and that, in the opinion of the com-
mittee, no sufficient reason exists in this borough for the
application of the proviso contained in that act, containing
the exemption from rateability of municipal property
within the parish of Liverpool. That all municipal pro-
perty should, in the opinion of this committee, be liable to
local rates. so long as the corporate income is more than
sufficient to meet the obligatory expenditure.
`• 3. That in• the opinion of the committee, all property
vested in the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks, or used,
or occupied by them, should likewise be rated to and pay
local taxation.

" 4. That in the opinion of this committee, application
should be made to Parliament in the next session, for the
purpose of securing the foregoing objects ; and that the
necessary bill or bills should be promoted at. the joint ex-
pense of the Council, and of the parochial authorities
within the borough.
"5. That in tie bill or bills so to be promoted, pro-
vision should be made for correcting and adjusting seve-
ral objections and difficulties which have arisen, relative
to the various powers contained in the existing general
and local acts, for laying and recovering rates.
That should these recommendations be approved by
the Council, a committee be appointed for the purpose of
conferring with the several parochial authorities, and pre-
paring the necessary bill or bills to be submitted to Par-
liament in the next session.

" WILLIAM EARLE, Ch airman."

The TOWN-CLERK also read memorials from the Select
Vestry and the NatibnakConfcderation, praying that paro-
chial rates might be imposed on the Corporate and Dock
Estates, end also from the Houseowners Guardian So-
-ciety,praying-Ciat-parochiabretes-p:ight not be imposed
upon the owners of cottage property.
Mr. EARLE. icoved the adoption of the report. He held
in his hand a return of the amount of taxation imposed
upon different towns in the.. kingdom. Information 'had
been sought from 55 towns. 29 of these had replied,
and--13 of them were blether than Liverpool. The higher
towns were Bridgenorth, Blackburn, Cheltenham, Brad-
ford, Leeds, Preston, London, Whitechapel, Spitalfields,
Mile End, St. Pancras, Marylebone, and Bow. The rates
in Carlisle, Lancaster, Stockport, and Sheffield, were
within 2d. of those of Liverpool—so that, notwithstand-
ing all that was said about local rates, we were not worse
off here than cur neighbours, and the inhabitants had not
much reason to complain.
Mr. PARKKER seconded the adoption of the report. He
believed it was the law of the British constitution that
every portion of the state should pay towards the support
of that state. It was the law in all the parishes of the
United Kiindoin that all the property within those pa-
rishes should be chartable to the local rates; and in advo-
cating this view 9P out of every 100 of the inhabitants of
Liverpool were on his side, and eventually the object
must be obtained. He asked why tradesmen employed
on one side of the dock estate should be compelled to
support the parochial burdens, and why Mr. Hartley and
others who were employed on the other Fide of it should
be exempted ? Was this fair ? Was it justice ? (Hear,
hear.) Why pay rates upon the dock property at Run-
corn, and upon the markets of Liverpool, and why refuse
to pay rates upon the docks of Liverpool, and upon the
corporate property situated in the various directions of the
town ?

Mr. G, H. LAWRENCE expressed a hope that he would
not lay himself open to the char...:,e of advocating anything,
like selfish int,'n'ests when he opposed the motion. and
protested against the reception of the report. He objected
to it on two grounds. On account of its merits, or rather
of its &mot its, and also because it' involved the necessity
of another application to parliament. He assured the
Council that more money had been spent since the pass-
ing of the Municipal Act, in opposing and promoting Acts
ofParliament, than St. George's Hall had cost ; and he
asked whether it was not far more advisable to carry out
the Mnoicipal Act than to proceed, session after session,
for private local acts? (Hear.) The first recommenda-
tion of the report was, that all descriptions of property
should be .taxed alike. Now the cottage proprietor op-
posed this. nor was it a matter of surprise that he should.
In legislating upon such a subject there was great difficutly

in preserving the franchise to the occupier if the owner paid
the rates, because if the occupier's name were erased
from the books, and the owner's inserted, then nine-
tenths of the public would stand a chance of being dis-
franchised, Besides, a fatal blow would be struck at the
independence of the voter, who then would be placed at
the influence of the landlord. This was his objection to
the first proposition. The next was, to subject the Cor-
poration revenue or town dues of every class of corporate
property to the burden of the parochial rates; and he
asked them on what grounds could they possibly have
arrived at such a conclusion as this, to go to Parliament
to disable themselves, to tie their hands behind them, and
confess that they were unable, in the words of the Muni-
cipal Act, "to spend • their money for the general
benefit of the inhabitants and the good of the bo-
rough." To consent to this would be to reduce them-
selves to .the level of the Select Vestry, nod to pre-
vent themselves from being able to meet any emergency.
If they had any. money to spare, let them relieve the inha-
bitants fiom the pressure of the general rate, but let
them not commit such an unjust, absurd, and impolitic
act as to devote their -funds to the payment of parochial
rates. Ile admitted that the markets paid poor rates, in
the same manner' as a landlord paid those rates for his
tenant, but he would ever oppose tha taxation of the
baths and washhouses of the Town hall.. He 5150 admitted
that the Corporation property at Runcorn paid
taxes; but then he contended that there was a wide dif-
ference between property beyond and within the precincts
of the borough. He was as much opposed to the rating
of the docks as he was to the rating of any other portion
of the corporate-estate;• and he thought the Council ought
to be the last parties to come there and tax their own
property in any shape. (Hear.) It had been decided
over and over again, by the Court of Queen's Bench,
that where there • was no beneficial interest no rates
should be imposed. If, then, they were now to tax every
ship, and cargo, and .passenger, they would be establishing
something like a second Custom-house, and doing more
than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever attempted,
for he bad never taxed every coin-modify. The policy now
proposed to lie pursued was most short-sighted. It was
an attempt to plunder and rob the commerce of the coun-
try, for the Dock property did not belong to the people
alone, hut appertained to the community at large. He
concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the Report
be met by a direct negative. __ _

Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE seconded the amendment. He
asked why-seek to tax the deck estate now when that
estate had from time immemorial been exempted from
rates? He expected to hear some arguments in support
of the motion, but the observations made on the subject
had convinced him more than ever of the non-necessity of,
the measure. He observed that so far as the Dock Estate
was concerned there could be no surplus. income, because
any surplus income which happened to arise, went in re-
duction of the dock dues. During the last 10 years the'
public had enjoyed this reduction to the extent of
£4oooeo ; and last year alone there had been a reduction
of £40,000. Had not this conferred benefit upon.
Liverpool ? Would it not. confer enormous benefit
upon the town if all dock rates were abolished ? Whence
came the source of all their wealth ? From the Mersey,
and the docks of Liverpool, because the Mersey could not
accommodate the trade of the port without the docks.
Why had the port of Bristol been in a state of decadence
compared with Liverpool? Because Englishmen were
treated there as aliens, and because 3s. a ton had to be
paid for what only was charged ls. 3d. in Liverpool. He
warned the Council, then against increasing the dock
rates, and said that before any increase were made
the Dock bondholders had aright to be consulted, because
they had lent their money on the security of the existing
laws. He believed that if they went to Parliament to
impose additional rates on the Estate they would be de-
feated, and that any such attempt would be the signal for
transferring the trust to the bondholders.
After an ineffectual attempt upon the part of Mr:
Procter to alourn the debate, in order that the public
might be afforded time to peruse it, .
Mr. H. HoRNBY defended the committee, and con-
tended that they were fully justified in submitting the
report. . .

.
Air. EVANS and Mr. ATKIN strongly opposed the recep-
tion of the report, and said that no time ought be lost in
lost in rejecting it.
Mr. S. HOLME opposed the rating of cottage and cor-
porate property, but was of opinion that the dock property
ought to be rated.

Mr. WOODROOFF thought that corporate and dock pro...
perty ought to be rated, and that cottage property ought
to be exempted.
Mr. J. B. LLOYD strongly supported the amendment,
upon the ground that his own interests, and those of the
public at large, were dependent upon the commerce of the
port.
Ater a few words from Mr. Rathbrine, Mr. Cooper,
and Mr. Harbord,
Mr. EARLS

. The Council divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l6
Against it
The amendment was, consequently, carried. The follow-
ing gentlemen voted in the division :

For it:---Messrs. W. Rathbone, Eyre Evans, G. H.
Horsfall, J. Thos. Rimmer, T. Royden, J. A. Tobin,
J. B. Lloyd, J. Plumpton, G. H. Lawrence, R. &no, W.
Mann, W. Nicol, J. Bramley-Moare, E. Molyncux, J. IL
Turner, T. the Mayor.—Total, 18.
Against it :—Messrs. W. Walthew, J. Thomson, J.
Woodruff, T. Littledale, jun., J. A. Thine, R. S. Hender-
son, T. Robinson,G. H. Iltubord. J. Rogers, S. Holme.
W. Earle, J. Parker, W. Watson, Thos Lloyd, J. Cooper,
J. Procter.—Total, 16.
Mr. TINNE and Mr. WOODRUFF both wished to move
amendments, but
The MAYOR intimated that, as Mr. Lawrence's amend-
ment had been carried. no further amendments could be
put, and that the whole of the report of the committee
was now rejected.