COUNTY RATES.

Order for Second Reading read.

posed to amend, and in its amended state to re-enact. The 55th Geo. III. had this defect, that having ascertained the rateable value of the property in each parish in a county, it gave an appeal in the event of a grievance, but without stating the number of days' notice which should be given. The 56th Geo. III. stated the length of notice, but omitted to state the party to whom it was to be given; and the 57th Geo. III. stated very inartificially the party to whom notice should be given. The framer of the Act intended not only to remedy that defect, but to remove another evil. By the Act 55 Geo. III. c. 51, the magistrates at session might give relief in the event of an appeal, but it was stipulated that the cost should

MR. FRESHFIELD said, that the object of the measure of which he now moved the Second Reading was, to consolidate the existing laws relative to the County Rates, and to introduce some Amendments. Under this Bill not a single shilling could be raised which was not already imposed under the Acts of Parliament now in force; nor would any person be subjected to any liability to which he was not already sub-in no case fall upon the county stock. ject. It was absolutely necessary that the This was considered very unjust; but, inlaw should be rendered consistent with it- tending to repeal the provision, the framer self. It might be known to many Members recited an Act in which there was no that the 55th Geo. III. c. 51, under which such clause, and the consequence is, the rates were levied, caused great dissatisfac- provision still remains in force. The hon. tion in consequence of the inequalities and Member for South Devonshire, by his Bill, irregularities which took place in the gave an appeal, but confined it to the next working of that Act, and there was a very session after the rate should be allowed, general complaint that many parishes were and no appeal after that, except against not rated in due proportion. They were the assessment-not against the basis upon indebted to the late Member for Kinsale which the rate was assessed; and therefore (Mr. Hawes) for the proposal of a Spe- the next rate or assessment would be made cial Committee which was appointed on this on the former standard, against which no subject. After a long investigation, and relief could be obtained, and the parish, eight different reports, in the county of should there be twenty rates, was comSurrey, the result was to convince the ma-pelled to incur the expense of twenty times gistrates that they were not bound to re-appealing against twenty rates, and yet ceive from the various parishes the accounts, as they returned them, of the rateable value of the property of the parish, but that they had the power of investigating what was the rateable value. The consequence was, that in the county of Surrey the basis for the rates was increased from 2,000,000l. to 2,200,000l.; in other words, the county rental liable to poor-rates upon which the county rate was assessed had been understated to that amount. These proceedings having become public, they attracted the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for South Devonshire (Sir J. Y. Buller), whose assistance he had in promoting the present measure; and he introduced a Bill which had for its object the appointment of a committee of magistrates, who were to decide what was the rateable value of the property in each parish. The committee was to consist of eleven members, or not less than five, and three were requisite to constitute a quorum. That Act he proVOL. CXIX. [THIRD SERIES.]

remain liable to be rated upon the same amount of rateable value, because after that basis had been confirmed, no power of correcting it existed, but by going again through the original form, and establishing a new basis. These were some of the inconveniences which he intended to remove by the present Bill. In the Acts to be consolidated, the terms county rate, basis, and assessment, were used as identical, although they related to distinct parts of the object to be attained for instance, the basis was the several amounts of the rateable value in each parish, the aggregate of which would be the county rental. The county rate is the sum multiplied by the number of pounds in the basis or county rental, which will give the sum to be raised for the county expenditure; thus, suppose the expenditure to be provided for should be 8,3007., and the county rental, that is, the aggregate of the rateable value in the county to be two millions-the rate to be declared would be

2 A

parish was rated by the same rule; but in some parishes 10 per cent was deducted for repairs, in others 25 per cent, and some have deducted so much as 50 per cent, and have made deductions upon the rent of land even where there were no farm buildings. So long as they permitted these deductions, rating could not be made upon any uniform principle. His object was, therefore, to establish a principle applicable alike to every parish: it was a question between each parish individually and all the other parishes, and not between counties and the parishes within. The hon. Member then gave illustrations in argument to show that it was immaterial upon what sum a parish was assessed, whether above or below the real value of the property rateable, provided that all the other parishes were made subject to the same rate of proportion.

one penny in the pound sterling; and, the acts of the Legislature had sought to lastly, the assessment would be the pro- remedy. The deduction was not necessary portion to fall upon each parish according to the interest of any parish, if every to its rental; and assuming parish A to stand in the basis as having a rateable rental of 8,000l., it would be assessed to pay 8,000 pennies, or 331. 6s. 8d. One object of this Bill of consolidation would be to keep these parts of the transaction distinct, but placed in their natural order. He proposed, therefore, that a basis should be formed on the machinery of his hon. Friend's Act, the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 39. The parishes will be rated in a certain proportion, and one month would be given to them to deliver any objections to that proportion. The committee to be restrained from reporting to the session within the month, and they are only to report after the objections have been argued and decided. When the sessions have framed a basis, there will be an appeal, not only to the next session, but at any time when the varying value of property shall render relief just. Besides this, it is proposed that there should be constituted a committee, to be called the County-rate Committee, appointed by the magistrates year by year, and changed from time to time, as it may appear right. The committee should have the power to investigate the claims of any parish to be relieved in consequence of the altered state of the parishes; but no determination upon their part should be binding until reported to the magistrates in sessions. He was bound to call the attention of the House to the fact that he proposed, with a view to an equal rating, material changes in the mode of estimating the relative value of property in the several parishes. He especially directed the attention of the House to the 6th clause. At present the county rate was assessed upon such property as was liable to be assessed for the relief of the poor by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. It was enacted, that in the first place should be ascertained the gross estimated rent, the rent at which the property might be expected to let to a tenant from year to year, repaying all rates and taxes-and from that estimated rent should be deducted the annual average cost of repair and insurance, and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain such rent, and then the remainder would constitute the rateable value. That provision of deducting for repair and insurance, he hoped to prevail pou the House to alter it was, in fact, the great source of the inequality which so many of Mr. Freshfield

MR. BOUVERIE would not, on the part of the Government, oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he confessed that he had strong misgivings as to the beneficial operation of it. The measure appeared to him to be liable to several objections. A preliminary one was this: while the Bill professed to consolidate the law, it only consolidated a portion of it, leaving many important points untouched. The Acts of Parliament relating to assessment were very complicated, and it was desirable that they should be carefully considered; but he did not think it desirable to consolidate some and leave others untouched, for that would create greater confusion than before. There were other details in the Bill to which he objected. Its main feature was to alter the phraseology of the law of assessment, which would make it unfamiliar to those who were in the habit of dealing with it as it at present stood. The Bill also proposed to make a great alteration in the principle upon which rating is at present based. In the measure brought in by an hon. Member, for assessing the poor-rate, an attempt was made to get at the net annual value, making deductions for repairs and insurances. He did not mean to say there were not difficulties in achieving this, but he did mean to say that the principle was the correct one. Unless the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Freshfield) was prepared to show that all property was subject to a fixed charge, his argument as to the variations of the de

ductions was worth nothing. For different kinds of property different amounts of deduction should be permitted, and it would work great injustice to say, "You shall only be allowed so much, no matter what is your real expenditure." Onekind of property might require only a deduction of per cent, another a deduction of 10 per cent. MR. H. HOPE tendered his thanks to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Freshfield) for the labour he had bestowed upon this Bill. The method of arriving at the net annual valuation of property was one which had an especial reference to the new Reform Bill. The elective franchise was to be based upon the net value. He know no means of obtaining a just estimate of that net value, unless by a very troublesome and expensive process, namely, appeals upon assessments. He did not know whether, when the proper time arrived, the Government would consider the question; but this he knew, that the Reform Bill could not be established on the present basis by which assessments were made. He trusted that his hon. Friend would give them some means not only of arriving at the gross annual valuation, but also the means of testing the proper reduction on the net annual value.

was tolerably good; but with respect to the poor-rate valuations, it was certainly true that there often existed a great inequality. Great good would be effected if a stricter supervision of the different parochial assessments was introduced. He objected to the principle which his hon. Friend (Mr. Freshfield) now proposed, that of establishing a different basis for the county rate and the poor-rate. If they once admitted that principle, it would be impossible to have the same assessment for the county rate and the poor-rate. Every county and every parish would then be necessarily put to the expense of having a double assessment for these two rates. There was nothing to prevent the machinery of the present law being improved, but he did not think that any further power given to the magistrates would add to the strength of the present law.

MR. HENLEY thought the difficulties which had been raised in the course of the debate were of so formidable a nature that his hon. Friend (Mr. Freshfield) must be a courageous man if he should attempt to encounter them. It seemed to him that the Reformers of England had a very discouraging prospect held out to them by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), MR. HUME was pleased that this dis- who said that no rateable value for the cussion had taken place, not because this franchise could be had until all the proBill could be made more valuable for the perty in the kingdom had been valued by purposes for which it was intended, but the same persons. If that were so, it because it had served to show a difficulty would be impossible to have an equal rate, which would attend the working of the even in one county, for by the time the Reform Bill, if not attended to in time. In party had gone through the whole county the assessments for the poor-rate, allow he would have to begin again, such would ances were made for repairs, but in the have been the variation in value of proincome tax no such thing was done. He perty by buildings and other improvements could point to parishes where the same va- in the meanwhile. The only thing they luable land was assessed at two widely could hope to reach was an approximation different rates. The noble Lord at the of value. They could not get anything head of the Government would find it im-like an equality, and therefore they must possible to have a fair representation on the rateable value unless there was a general valuation of the whole country by the same individual. It appeared to him that the Government ought to ask the hon. Gentleman to suspend his Bill, and then bring in a general Bill by which all the parishes would be rated equally.

MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS said, that the present law required that the valuation for poor-rates should be equal as between different tenants in the same parish, and that the valuation for the county rates should be equal as between the different parishes in the county. For estimating the county rate the machinery

be content if now and then there were some apparent inequalities. He had had something to do with the making of county rates in his time, and he knew there were descriptions of property which required very large deductions; and he could not conceive any principle so unjust as to take cottages in towns let at high rents as the measure of value on which the assessment was to be made, and to put on the same footing with them land on which hardly any buildings were erected. All he could say was that he thought the time of the House was wasted in discussing such a measure.

MR. HUME explained that what he

MR. FRESHFIELD said, he felt no alarm or nervous affections in consequence of the hon. Member's caution. The Bill was one of the most simple in operation, and he anticipated no difficulty or serious obstruction to its passing through the House.

Bill read 2°.

PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Order for Second Reading read. Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE moved that the Bill be read a Second Time, and that it should be afterwards referred to a Select Committee. He felt perfectly satisfied that if it were referred to a Select Committee, the result would be a Bill which would please all parties.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

wanted was, not that local parties alone it. With that view the meeting unanishould assess the value, but that they mously agreed that a Committee should be should do it in connection with an officer appointed on the subject, and that they of the Crown, acting in accordance with ought to have the authority and countenance certain rules by which the valuation might of the Government in some way or other, be made as equal as possible. in order to obtain a full and fair, and not a partial, inquiry. A division took place in the meeting on the point whether they ought to reject the Bill, and recommend the appointment of a Committee, not fettered by any of the clauses of the Bill, but open to the examination of witnesses in a perfectly full and fair way. That proposition met with considerable support; but on a division whether the Bill should be proposed to be read a second time or not, he (Mr. Hume) was bound to say that twelve voted in favour of it-those twelve, however, differing among themselves as regarded the merits of the Bill-and sixteen for rejecting the second reading, and in favour of an independent Committee. He thought it was important to state to the House one or two facts which he hoped would regulate the votes of hon. Members on the question now before them. The Bill proposed to appoint a Committee of Justices of the Peace, and to invest them with the power of granting licences; and that was done with the view of reducing the number of licences for the sale of spirits. He had obtained certain returns bearing on this question from two or three places in Scotland. For the last eight or ten years a Committee had been in existence in Edinburgh, who were exceedingly anxious to put down the vice of drunkenness, and through whose exertions the number of spirit licences had been considerably reduced. It appeared that the number of licences in that city in 1830 were 872, and in 1851 they were 516, showing a reduction of 356 in that period. In the county of Edinburgh the number of spirit licences in 1830 was 706, and in 1850 it was reduced to 449, making a total of 613 licences less in the city and county in 1851 than in 1830. He would now ask if, in consequence of that reduction of licences, there had been any commensurate benefit ? None; the vice of drunkenness had been continued. The parties addicted to it had been driven into holes and corners to gratify their propensity, and in that and various other ways the vice of drunkenness had been carried on, and continued to increase. What benefit, therefore, could accrue from a proposition which aimed at a reduction of the licences all over the country? In Renfrewshire the spirit li

MR. HUME said, that this Bill was opposed generally by the people of Scotland. He was extremely unwilling to take up the time of the House, but he hoped they would excuse him whilst he stated shortly why he objected to the Bill. He objected to it on principle, because it was supposed by the promoters that by limiting publichouse licences the tendency to excessive drinking, which he was sorry to say had been too common in Scotland of late years, would be discouraged. He was as anxious as any individual connected with that part of the Kingdom could be that a remedy should be found, if possible, for the excessive drinking habits which obtained there; but he believed this Bill would only add to the difficulties in the way of preventing the evil, because it would give to a few persons only the power of granting licences, which they might exercise with partiality or caprice; and that proceeding would only add to the evil. He might inform the House that the Scotch Members had a meeting yesterday to consider the provisions of the Bill. Twentyeight members were in attendance, of whom not one approved of the measure. The hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. F. Mackenzie) himself only approved of one clause. All agreed on one point, that it was the duty of Members connected with Scotland to ascertain, if possible, the extent of that demoralising vice of drunkenness, and to contrive the best means of removing

cences in 1828 amounted to 1,203, and in | and in 1851 this number was reduced to 1850 to 877, showing a decrease of 326: 6,000. By allowing the unrestricted sale and yet the vice of which they complained of beer in London, drunkenness had dehad increased more perhaps in that county creased one-half; while under the other than in any other in Scotland, although it system the vice had been on the increase was but fair to say that it was attributed in Scotland. He would therefore ask the to the number of Irish labourers that had House to reject the Bill, and to appoint a been introduced. Looking at those facts, Committee instead, to inquire into the he submitted, the reduction of licences causes of the increase of drunkenness in would not have the effect which was ex- Scotland, and of the decrease of it in Engpected of putting an end to drunkenness. land. He would offer himself as a witness In Sutherlandshire and Ross-shire he was before that Committee, and he thought he told the trial had also been made, and had should be able to prove that the system been equally unsuccessful. Now, let him adopted in Scotland was likely to increase ask the House, with those results before instead of decreasing the vice. He would them, whether they were not in condi- not at that moment go into the question tion to avail themselves of the benefits of the education of the people; but he of the different systems which prevailed would say, that by the liberal conduct in England? In the city of London there adopted in London, in opening public was no limitation in the licensing of beer- places of recreation for the people, such shops except as respected the situation of as the National Gallery, the British Muthe premises where the beer was proposed seum, and the parks, they now had it in to be sold. He (Mr. Hume) looked back their power to spend their leisure in a safe with great satisfaction to the improvement and pleasurable way, instead of in publicwhich had taken place in this metropolis houses. He admitted that there never in the habits of the people. They no was a man more desirous of improving longer saw the streets crowded with the morals of the community than Lord drunken people as was the case about Kinnaird, whose Bill this was commonly 1830, and as is the case now in Glasgow called; but he (Mr. Hume) submitted at and Edinburgh. Twenty or thirty years the same time, with all due deference to ago to such a height had the vice of the promoters, that they were taking a drunkenness reached, that no man could wrong course. They might reduce the pass a spirit shop in London without see- number of public-houses in Scotland; but ing numbers of wretched creatures at the unless some other places of recreation were door waiting for some one to treat them given to the people, experience showed to a glass of gin, or reeling away drunk. that drunkenness would not be decreased. In 1831 the number of persons taken into He would now say that the noble Lord custody by the police for being drunk (Lord John Russell) did all his power to was 41,736, of whom, in round numbers, comply with a request made by him (Mr. 22,000 were males, and 18,000 females. Hume) on behalf of the people with regard Since that period considerable alteration to the throwing open of the Tower and had taken place. A great number of our great cathedrals and abbeys. The places of public amusement and recreation right hon. Gentleman the President of the had been opened, and the monopoly in the Board of Control, then Under Secretary sale of spirits and beer had been discon- for the Home Department, was the organ tinued. What had been the effect? Why, of communication between him and the an actual reduction of the number of per- noble Lord, and he congratulated them sons taken into custody for drunkenness; both on the success of the measures they for he found that in the course of the last then adopted, by which, as they now saw, year the number of such persons was only drunkenness had been so much decreased. 23,6000, or, in round numbers, 13,000 Let them, therefore, pursue such a course males and 10,000 females. In other words, as would enable them to gain information while the population of the metropolis in as to the means of carrying out the same the twenty years from 1831 to 1851 had system in Scotland. He would now reincreased 542,000, the decrease in the commend the withdrawal of the Bill, with number of drunken persons in it amounted the view of having a Committee appointed to no less than 18,000. Again, in 1831, to inquire into the question of drunkenness the number of disorderly persons taken in Scotland, its causes, and the best means into custody in the metropolis amounted of repressing them. He was one of those to 10,000, 7,000 males and 3,000 females; who, thirty-five years ago, foretold that