1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/053c1050e44fd0e8b1d751eb1a25a410.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=I4gBzDuLpITI8QTha5WZz2slby1Rqbv1NUEaFaNTFw4FmuOPIMM8JE20VpZ8oZ1wYOTuabSde-QlI8XpsF59K5WInBM9xADqDN6jE-Y37FMThMlKeGATdVHSwwDv11YEHS1eYe3E3Oex4gvzJf5WpGkisAowoF06CG7Ok6vCi%7EVFpvVKSpdxnrUB0mUCZ2L4tnuyrMqKk-227GD9z3rAeNj0xolvfogX-sgyOfWy915UJ5SU%7EM8hW7Uzq8Km-6q5QdEJLAN8f60QDlt5-60WALvfWrGCwDm0IOyk0u1EETJAFdb1%7EvmXBwAIo5N7fzb9BWCubXCC6cEL5TyaJHPZfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9261c96c165f14918d8057b3dbdf1003
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
LOCAL TAXATION,
ESPECIALLY IN
ENGLISH CITIES AND TOWNS,
H Speech
Delivered in the House of Commons, on March 2$rd, 1886,
BY
JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS, M.P.
(SOUTHWARK, BERMONDSEY DIVISION.)
CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited
LONDON, PARIS, NEW
YORK 6* MELBOURNE.
��?4-
PREFACE.
The following speech was made in the House of Commons
on March 23rd, 1886. For fifteen years the country party
had succeeded, at the instance of several Conservative
country gentlemen who have been members of the House,
and have been assisted by gentlemen on the Liberal side,
in putting Liberal Governments in a minority on the sub
ject of local taxation, and thereby of transferring taxation,
levied from the beginning on landowners or their tenants,
to the Consolidated Fund, and, consequently, of burdening
the general public and increasing the annual expenditure
of Government.
As the burden of local taxation in towns is growing
heavier and heavier on occupiers, and as in Scotland
and Ireland half the local taxation is paid by owners, I deter
mined as early as possible to bring the subject before
the new Parliament, and I did so with success, carrying
my motion by a majority of forty. This, the first defeat
which the country party has sustained on the subject of
local taxation for years, is of great interest to townspeople,
especially to shopkeepers, and with the view of attracting
their attention, the speech has been published.
JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS.
Hcnise of Commons,
June 1st, 1886.
��Local Taxation,
ESPECIALLY IN ENGLISH CITIES AND TOWNS.
Sir,—Since the year 1831, down to the last session of the Attention
late Parliament, scarcely a single year has passed in which Tven in
some Act bearing upon Local Taxation has not been added t^the'^b1
to the Statute Book; while during the last fifty years there ject.
have been constant debates in this House on the same
subject, generally indeed from one aspect of the question,
the relief of the landed interest at the expense of the Con
solidated Fund, i.e. of the general body of taxpayers. As
a consequence of these debates, and the votes taken on
them, very considerable changes in the liability to local
taxation have been made during the last fifteen years, and
very considerable charges have been transferred from the
local taxpayer to the general public. I do not, indeed, in
introducing this motion to the House, intend to discuss the
merits of these proposals, or the policy which has effected
the transference; but I trust that, with the indulgence of the
House, I may be able to substantiate the four propositions
which are contained in my motion. I am aware, indeed,
that to deal exhaustively with the subject would require a
speech of ten or twenty hours, and, though I shall not
trespass long on the patience of the House, I trust that it
will not believe that the subject is concluded in the brief
remarks to which I venture on inviting its attention.
Practically, local taxation, as we now understand it, i.e. origin of
a charge levied on defined localities for local purposes, com- Local,
menced with the poor law of Queen Elizabeth (43 Eliz., TaxatI0n-
�6
Transfer
ence from
owners to
occupiers.
cap. 2), and since that time, with only a short interruption,
on which I shall comment hereafter, it has been the in
variable practice to levy the whole of local taxation on what
is commonly called real estate only: in England and Wales
on the occupier only of real estate; while in Scotland and
Ireland, under Acts of a much more recent date, such local
taxation has been shared by the owner and occupier, i.e.
has been divided into nearly equal moieties between the
parties interested. Originally, the whole of the local taxa
tion in Scotland was levied on the owner, and it was only
when a more extensive system of Poor Law relief was ren
dered necessary in Scotland, owing mainly to the disruption
of the Scottish Church, that the division of liability was
made between the two principal parties, the landowner and
the occupier.
Now, sir, in the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign such an
imposition of local taxation on occupancy was not only
obvious but was generally equitable. At that time, and indeed
for a long time afterwards, the number of occupying owners
was very large, and the tenant farmer was comparatively
rare. Besides, there is good reason to believe that the
owner paid his tenant’s rates, though I cannot venture on
troubling the House with the somewhat antiquarian evidence
by which I am convinced that I could prove my statement.
The property of these occupying owners was therefore
obviously the natural object for local levies, the division
between owner and occupier being naturally disregarded in
view of the comparative rarity of occupying tenants at will.
In course of time the ranks of these occupying freeholders
were sadly thinned, especially during the latter half of the
seventeenth century. Lawyers, or at least legal antiquaries,
are aware of the fact that at this time the strict settlement
was invented, under which nothing which had been purchased
by any landowner under a settlement could be reft from the
estate ; but few are aware of what was the process by which
thousands of these freeholds were violently extinguished.
For several sessions the House of Lords passed an Act, the
object of which was to confiscate certain freeholds, and at
last the Commons accepted the Act. Any one can see how,
�7
under the first clause of the Statute of Frauds (29 Par. ii.,
cap. 3), the great landowners contrived to effect this pur
pose ; for this famous clause provides, without any reference
to the antiquity of the tenancy, that persons who were not
possessed of documentary evidence of title in the lands which
they occupied should, unless the rent reserved were twothirds the rack rent, be treated as tenants at will. This,
and not, as some persons fancy, a honest purchase of the
small freeholder’s tenement, is the true explanation of that
sudden disappearance of freeholders which so many his
torians have noticed.
A generation or two later another system began, which Inclosure>
still more limited the number of occupying owners, because
it narrowed the opportunities of their agricultural industry.
I am alluding to the appropriation and enclosure of com
mon lands under numerous and incessant Private Acts of
Parliament. The first of these Inclosure Acts was in 1709,
and between that date and 1852 it is well known that at least
nine millions of statute acres have been appropriated by
private owners under those Acts, to say nothing of what has
been confiscated since. Now, any one who has studied the
history of the poor, especially of the agricultural poor, knows
how severely these inclosures pressed on them, how frequent
was the complaint of the consequences, and how, the con
dition of the peasantry having become more hopeless and
more miserable, all sorts of expedients were adopted to
remedy the mischief which was created. The House knows
how pauperism increased, how it threatened to absorb rent,
and to swallow up all the gains of the landowners, not only
the profits on their ancient estates, but on the additions which
the enclosures had made to their estates, and how at last
the experiment of Mr. Lowe, of Bingham, the father of a
distinguished statesman, once a member of this House, and
now of the other, with Mr., afterwards Sir G., Nicholls,
became the type on which the New Poor Law was
enacted. By this time, however, the occupying owner
has become a rarity, and the occupying tenant, now gene
rally a tenant at will, is now made liable to all that local
taxation which was levied on the basis of the Poor
�8
ew kinds
' Local
axation.
lie coniittee of
?~o.
Law assessment, and is frequently paid by precept on the
guardians.
For a long time, local taxation for the relief of destitu
tion was nearly the only charge which was imposed on the
occupier. In course of time other charges were imposed on
the same persons, and on the same assessment, for different
purposes. The House is aware that the repair of roads, the
maintenance of bridges, the custody of criminals, and the
police of district was a local landowners’ liability. But many
of these liabilities were discharged by personal service. The
repair of roads was a local obligation discharged by Statute
labour even after the great Turnpike Act of 1773. Gaols
were frequently franchises, and valuable franchises too. It
was only by 12 Geo. II., cap. 29 (1739) that the county rate
was leviable on occupiers, and made the means for repair
ing bridges and building prisons. Still more lately has the
parish constable been superseded by the police, in the
towns first and in country places much later. I don’t think,
indeed, that the tolls taken on the roads could have been
employed for their repair, for the Novels of the eighteenth
century complain that travellers had to pay heavy tolls for
the use of roads which were no better than quagmires.
Of course, however, these local taxes are nothing to what
the exigencies of modern society have demanded, and the
custom of Parliament has imposed on occupancy. So large
have they become that in many places the poor rate, origin
ally almost the only local tax levied, has become only the
third or fourth part of that which is exacted from the occu
pier, and about which the occupier bitterly complains, as I
shall hope to show, with reason.
No doubt in consequence of those complaints, a Committee was appointed in 1870, at the instance of the then
President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Goschen), in
order to inquire into the whole subject of local taxation. My
right hon. friend was Chairman of that Committee, and,
apart from the labours which he gave with his colleagues,
in the valuable report and evidence which he collected; he
published on his own personal authority an excellent
summary of the situation. The members of the Committee
�9
were of proved capacity, and were peculiarly familiar with
the subject referred to them. They published a Report
which, as is the case with many other valuable reports, has
not been followed by remedial legislation. In it they recom
mended that division of rates between owner and occupier
which I commend to the House in my motion. It is true
that the recommendation was only carried by a bare ma
jority, but this need surprise no one who remembers that our
Committees are not, as they should be, a microcosm of the
House, but a mere balance of the two great parties. But most
of the witnesses, and certainly the best informed, who were
examined before the Committee, recommended the division,
not because they thought, as I do, that the change would
materially and justly modify the incidence of local taxation,
but because they thought that it was likely to result in a
more careful and economical administration of the rates,
since in the event of the change all who paid rates would
be represented on the board. But I am disposed to think
that the witnesses exaggerated this result of the change. I
am sure indeed that it would be often an advantage and an
economy, to say nothing of the obstacle to scandals, if ex
guardians did not frequent their board, and I well know
that an admixture of such gentlemen as are entirely free
from personal bias has often purged a board of guardians ;
but I am bound to say that the administration of public
funds by county magistrates has been characterised by un
questionable integrity and economy. They are not an
elected body, but I very much doubt whether, when in time
to come we have elected boards, the new men will exceed
the old hands in public spirit, integrity and thrift. Sometimes
indeed they go too far in this praiseworthy direction. I well
remember that an old friend of mine, the late Mr. Joseph
Henby, carried his economies to excess; for he took upon
himself in constructing some new cells in Oxford County goal
to disregard the requirements of the Home Office, and he found
out that the money he wished to save had to be spent, and
that which he had been niggard in spending had been wasted.
Now, Sir, I have thought it necessary to give this brief Q^stthgCtl<
and very imperfect sketch of a subject, the full history of House.
�IO
which would be beyond my physical powersand the patience
of the House. I now come to the more controversial part
of my motion. And here I cannot help regretting that most
of those gentlemen who, in past years and in other parlia
ments, have brought forward diverse motions, are absent
from the present House. Sir Massey Lopes, Mr. Pell, Mr.
Clare Read and Sir Baldwyn Leighton have often spoken,
and at length, on this topic, and have made the subject of
local taxation their peculiar study. I regret it the more
because I am constrained to differ greatly from their conclu
sions, though I should gladly have had the benefit of their
criticisms. They have certainly been successful with the
last three Parliaments, for during the last fifteen years the
efforts of the landowning interests have been incessant in the
direction of the transference of local burdens from the occu
pier to the Consolidated Fund, and with marked success,
especially in the Parliament of 1874, when they pushed
their opportunities vigorously. Sir Massey Lopes, in one
remarkable speech, put forward the doctrine that all local
taxation was an imperial concern, and even alleged that the
maintenance of the poor should justly be derived from the
national exchequer. The result of these efforts has been
that local rates have been relieved, without, I am afraid,
much resultant economy, from the charges of prisons and
criminals, of lunatics, to a large extent from the maintenance
of public roads ; while increasingly larger subventions, as we
see from the swollen Civil Service Estimates, have been
granted for similar local purposes. Now, I gather from the
last Report of the Local Government Board that nearly two
and a-half millions were paid from the Consolidated Fund in
aid of local taxation.
Mr. Chamberlain (President Local Government Board):
I can assure my hon. friend that two and a-half millions are
far below the amount which is paid for the objects to which
he refers. He will find that the total of the contribution
amounted to a far larger sum.
Mr. Thorold Rogers : I named the sum of two and
a-half millions, which was all that I could find in the
Report of the Local Government Board, and I have been
�11
consulting with Mr. Howard, the librarian, who referred
me to the figures which I have quoted. I fear that my
opportunities and intelligence have been limited.
Mr. Chamberlain (handing the summary of the Civil
Service Estimates) : My hon. friend will find the particulars
in this page, and may see that in the United Kingdom the
amount paid under the head he describes amounts to near
six millions.
Mr. Thorold Rogers : I beg to thank my Right Hon.
friend for the information. It is a little unfortunate that
Parliamentary papers are not drawn up in a manner which
enables one to make immediate and conclusive use of them.
I have been looking through these papers, as I said, the
whole afternoon, in hope of getting the information which
would enable me to state what has been the course of events
for the last fifteen years, and nothing can be conceived more
hopelessly puzzling and confusing than the Estimates are.
I am quite convinced that the criticism of Supply would
be infinitely easier, if the process under which the Estimates
are presented was revised and amended. I hope, how
ever, that I may be excused for having understated the
charge transferred from the occupiers to the Consolidated
Fund. The House will see that my Right Hon. friend has
strengthened my position. Now, as the money has to be
paid, for local expenditure increases in spite of these sub
ventions, where does the money come from ? Who pays
it ? It is quite certain that it comes out of the Incometax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : It comes out The per
sons who
of all the taxes.
pay grants
Mr. Thorold Rogers : No doubt it nominally comes in aid to
out of all the taxes, because the proceeds of all taxes go to Local
Taxation.
the Consolidated Fund. But I do not modify my state
ment. It is perfectly well known that the proceeds of these
taxes are not progressive, but the reverse, as I am afraid the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is already aware. The only
tax which is progressive is the Income-tax, and this only,
unluckily, because those who pay it are visited with an
increased percentage. As a matter of fact, it is not the
�12
I
I
I
I
custom, at any rate, it is not the wisdom or experience of
gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to put on new taxes, and
it has not been for the last fifteen years. The gentlemen of
the Treasury Bench had a pretty rough experience last
June of such attempts. They find it dangerous to them and
to their stability on their seats, but they always have the
remedy of screwing up Income-tax by a penny or two, in
order to meet the deficiencies, whether they are due to a de
clining revenue, to an increased expenditure, or to the relief
of opulent landowners. Now, I have no doubt that the
greater part of the subventions of which I complain have
been taken from those who pay Income-tax. I wonder
whether Hon. members reflect on the singular severity with
which the Income-tax presses on such persons as work for
their living, and out of that work earn incomes between
^150 and ^1,000, and who cannot in any way escape from
the tax-gatherer. I believe there is no class of persons in the
United Kingdom who contribute more to the Exchequer, in
proportion to their resources, and with such serious sacrifices
to themselves and their families. Can my Right Hon.
friend point out to me any source, during the last fifteen
years, from which any additional revenue has been derived
except from the Income-tax ? I think I have shown who it
is that has been forced to pay.
to the question as to who really pays
are Put upon occupancy, that is,
upon whom the ultimate incidence falls of that which the
occupier is forced to contribute. The whole force of my
argument depends on my proof of this part of my case.
Here I can claim the authority and support of my Right Hon.
friend the member for Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen), who said
very truly, as indeed every man of sense must say, that the
burden of a tax has a tendency to remain upon those on
whom the tax is first imposed. Of course there are callings
or industries in which the tax is mechanically and imme
diately transferred, as in the case of those who deal in
excisable and duty-paying articles. Such traders could not
exist unless the transference were understood. But it is
/ho pays
I now, Sir, pass
axation? those local taxes
�T3
an economical law that in order to enable a person to
transfer a tax, he must effect a subsequent operation with
some other party, whom he is able to make ultimately the
contributor of the tax, and that, of course generally, with
a profit to himself on the tax which he has primarily paid.
This is the reason why certain shopkeepers and tradesmen
are able to impose on their customers, not only the taxes
they pay on the materials of their trade, but even the large
rents they pay, and the local taxation which is heaped on
them; but even the Income-tax. This was curiously illus
trated by the complaint of the traders against the Civil
Service Stores. They came to my noble friend Lord
Sherbrooke, then Mr. Lowe, and Chancellor of the Ex
chequer, and told him that they could not compete against
the Stores because they had to pay Income-tax and the
Stores had not. He was talking to me about this, and
I said to him, “ Of course, you see that this can only
mean, that the traders make their customers pay a double
Income-tax, their own and their tradesmen’s; in short, they
transfer their taxes to their customers by raising the price
of their goods.”
Now, Sir, I do not blame these tradesmen. They are
simply carrying out a familiar economical law. Their
action has no taint in it, for every person who has the wit
to transfer a tax from himself to his neighbour must have
the sympathy of every right-minded citizen, for he is
educating himself in what we are told is the business of
life, i.e. the Survival of the fittest. But with such excep
tions, and they could be multiplied in number and degree,
taxes have always a tendency to stay upon those upon
whom they are first imposed. This is a statement which
I believe no fair-minded economist would ever pretend to
dispute. And as this is the case, it is quite certain that
many of these taxes, even though levied locally, will remain
where they are imposed, and that even where they are trans
ferred, it requires a very vigorous effort, and very exceptional
circumstances of freedom, to get rid of them. But as a
matter of fact, very few occupiers are free agents from the
moment they enter into their contract of occupancy. Some
�14
members of the House will recollect that this matter was
pretty fully argued in the last Parliament in relation to the
Sitting tenant. An occupier in agriculture can never sur
render his holding without losing from io to 15 percent,
of his capital. This is equally true, sometimes still more
cogently true, in the case of professional men and trades
men, and it is by the screw which this loss suggests to the
landlords that they are able not only to raise their rents
enormously, as I shall presently show, but impose the whole
burden of local taxation on the occupier. Those members
of the House who are familiar with these facts know that
my statement has been confirmed as regards agriculture
by such competent persons as Sir James Caird and Mr.
James Howard, and I could give from my experience as a
metropolitan member of some years’ standing proofs of
how cogent is the machinery in the case of traders. I do
not find fault with those who take advantage of their oppor
tunities. I never heard of any man who was so bad as the
creed he professed, and I never have found any man who
was better than the law he lives under. I find fault with
the law which gives them the opportunities ; and it is with
only one of these opportunities that I am dealing now. I
do not, for instance, dwell on the power which the settle
ment of estates in great towns, and the existence of opulent
corporations, give to landowners to exact hard terms from
their tenants. These people have neither character or con
science.
>Clll
Now, Sir, I shall probably be treated to the timefixation honoured generality that local taxes are always paid ulti
id to be
mately by the landlords. I hope I have shown already
ii<] by
ndowners that this is not true, and I shall say a little more on this
the end.
subject. But assuming it for the moment to be the case,
if it be true that the landowner pays them all at the end,
what can be the hardship of putting them entirely on the
owners at the beginning. I have sometimes suggested this
change to the advocates of the theory I have quoted; but I
have always found them intensely reluctant to make the
experiment. They are reluctant with reason, for the state
ment is only plausible to a landowner or his agent, and
�i5
unreal to the occupier or tenant. I have not the smallest
doubt that if a thousand occupiers were asked who it was
who paid local taxes, 999 would reply that the whole, or
the greater part, fell on their shoulders. Now, if the land
lords are right, there could be no harm in their paying a
moiety as I suggest; and it is quite certain that their
tenants, however wrong their theories might be, would
be very glad of the temporary, and as I believe, of the per
manent relief. And I venture upon urging that it would
be very expedient to do so at the present time. Very
awkward opinions are gaining ground, opinions which
I deprecate as unsound, unfair, and dangerous; but if the
contention of the landlords is correct, that local taxation
presses upon them, they cannot possibly lose by my pro
posal, because they simply have to put into operation the
process of transferring that which they have paid to the
tenant immediately, after they have paid that which they
have to pay in the end, according to their own assertion.
At any rate, I am pretty certain that the adoption of the
provision which I have proposed will be a great concession
to popular sentiment, which is entirely on my side of the
argument now, and must be a very useful means for stifling
popular discontent.
The opinion, Sir, that a landlord pays the tax in the
end, is merely derived from the facts of a single transaction,
and that only at the instant of its completion. When a
farmer takes a farm he always calculates or discovers its
average outgoings in local taxation, and now, at least, what
ever he did in past times, he deducts these outgoings from
the rent he offers. But as I have already said, the freedom
of his action ceases with the beginning of his occupancy.
In the case of other occupiers, who are constrained by the
exigencies of business to reside within defined localities,
the freedom of choice hardly exists at the beginning of
the contract, as every trader or merchant who occupies
premises would tell you. In the case of the poor in great
towns there is even less freedom still. Everybody knows
how enormous is the proportion of their rent to their
income. I have housed, in connection with the company
�i6
of which I am a director, many thousands of London
artizans and their families in model dwellings, and I am
I
glad that I have been able to give my time and attention
i
to this work. I could have housed them at thirty per cent.
I
less if the local taxation which enhances their rent, and
I
which I think they pay, had been put on the persons whose
|
land has profited by their presence.
ldonofXa'
Now, Sir, I do not mean to say that our system of local
sonal°pro-r taxation is fair. As an occupier, I should have no objecperty for
tion to adopt the American system and to have my chattels
p°ocsae1sptir' taxed. You must not, indeed, tax stock-in-trade, as was
attempted between 1790 and 1800. Lord Mansfield, a
wise judge, always refused to accept the contention of those
who alleged that personal property, that is, manufacturing
stock, was taxable under the statute of Elizabeth. Lord
|
Kenyon, a foolish judge, permitted the taxation of this
property, with the result, as you may see in the report of
1834, of ruining the West of England cloth trade, of giving
a bounty to the better placed Yorkshire industry, and of
impoverishing the midland and southern counties. I am
sorry to say that I am old enough to remember the comments
on this process, and the ruin that followed it in my own
district of England. But if you are going to tax chattels,
my books and chairs, etc., you cannot allow great houses,
splendid pictures, and vast libraries, to altogether escape
this taxation. You must levy these taxes on Chatsworth,
Blenheim, Althorpe, and a thousand other ostentatious and
splendid personalities. I do not know what price the
founder of the House of Churchill gave for the Raphael for
which we paid ,£75,000, probably not more than ,£750,
even if he paid that. Now, why should these, and a million
other pictures escape taxation, if you are to charge personal
property with local taxation, as the landowners always claim
we should ? I doubt very much whether they would be glad
to acquiesce in that which they demand.
Much Local
Now, Sir, what are the great local burdens, as they are
beneficial21 ca^e(^>
country places? The principal charges are those
outlay on for the maintenance of the poor and the repair of highways,
land.
Now, I contend that these are both beneficial outlays, The
I
I
�17
poor rate in the country, as every economist will allow, is
an insurance against the inevitable certainty of destitution—
a certainty which has been heightened by the eviction of
the peasant from the soil, a certainty which will become a
remote risk when he is restored to it, as I hope this Parlia
ment will restore him. If this insurance fund were not
paid his wages would inevitably rise. I know that I con
tribute, and have for many years, not only to the pauperism
which I do not create, but aid the miserable wages which
farmers pay by the wages of my domestic servants, for their
relations, mainly peasants, know pretty clearly when quarter
day comes to them, and have generally paid them a visit
shortly after that event. My experience is that of thou
sands.
And, with regard to roads, the beneficial outlay is even
more obvious. Without roads, land is only of prairie
value. The cost of creating and maintaining these roads is
absolutely necessary to the landlord for the enjoyment of
his property or his rent. I live in a town, and I pay for the
roads which give value to the ground landlord’s property.
I ought not to do it, but I do not grudge it. I do, how
ever, grudge paying out of my income-tax to the roads
which are necessary for my opulent and meritorious neigh
bours, the country gentlemen. I hope my Right Hon. friend
the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Henry Fowler) will not
consider me inconsistent. I voted the other day for pay
ing the charges of the Chester and Holyhead Road out of
the Consolidated Fund. The road was made for strictly
Imperial purposes, for the maintenance of law and order in
Ireland, or, as hon. gentlemen opposite might say, for its
coercion. That road, therefore, like the highway to the
North, was a matter of national importance, ought to be
maintained by the nation, and ought not to be paid by the
inhabitants of those poor and barren counties through which
it passes. I admit a public duty; I deprecate the affecta
tion of public spirit in a direction which would be unjust
economy. I hope, Sir, that I have now made out a good
case for the division of local taxation between the owner
and the occupier, and have supported the contention of the
�i8
Committee of 1870, that landowners ought in equity to
bear at least a moiety of these charges.
he argu
Now, Sir, I shall be told that what I have proposed will
ment
gainst dis- disturb existing arrangements—perhaps that freedom of con
lrbing
tract which some well-to-do people believe to be the centre
Listing
ontracts. of the Constitution, but which those who struggle for their
living look upon with very different feelings. I shall be told
that it is an ancient custom for the occupier to pay the
rates, as it is a modern theory that the landlord pays them.
I shall be instructed that it is an indelible part of the Con
stitution, or the latest phrase, “a fundamental law.” Sir,
these phrases remind me of a story of my youth. An
early friend of mine, the late Dr. Buckland, geologist, and
Dean of Westminster, was being shown over an ancient
cathedral. The verger pointed out to him a spot which was
indelibly marked with the blood of a mediaeval saint and
martyr. The mark was washed out from time to time, but
the sanguine stain always reappeared. Now, Dr. Buckland
was a naturalist of an inquiring, not to say sceptical, mind.
He determined to inquire. He wetted his finger, stooped
down, rubbed the mark, applied his finger to his tongue,
and replied conclusively, “ Bat’s dung I ” (Loud laughter.)
Now, Sir, there is a deal of “bat’s dung” in the British
Constitution, and for my part, having discovered by some
study the cause of many of these indelible stains, I am
quite prepared, with the assistance of my friends here, to get
up to the roof and dislodge the bats.
rhe assessI now proceed to what is practically the second clause
nent of
of my motion—I mean the low values for rating purposes at
country
nansions. which country mansions are assessed. The House must be
perfectly well aware of the soreness and discontent which
the present system excites. Men who live in towns, and
carry on business there, complain that their premises are
assessed at amounts which are in excess of the rate imposed
on huge country mansions and vast parks. Now, we know
well how these assessments are settled. The valuation is
fixed by the Justices in Quarter Sessions—that is, by the in
habitants of these mansions—and in accordance with the
provisions of 5 and 6 Will. IV. Now, I am far from saying
�19
that these mansions ought to be rated at their full building
value, and I am far from finding fault with the Justices for
rating them, in accordance with the terms of the Act, on
a hypothetical letting value. In point of fact, if the Quarter
Sessions interpreted the clause strictly, it would justify the
Justices in putting a still lower nominal assessment. I do not
think that they would break the law if in many cases they put
no value on them whatever, for many of them could hardly
be let to any persons at all. But the practice of England is
not the practice of other countries. In the United States
local taxation visits- all house property with an assessment
on its building value. They do not give owners such
advantages as they get in England, for they tax empty
houses on the ground that the State ought not to assist or
excuse a man when he keeps his goods out of the market.
Now, though I admit that these assessments are in accord
ance with the existing law, I think it is high time that the
law should be materially modified. It is policy to do so, for
I venture on again reminding the House that there is an awk
ward spirit in the air. There are thousands of persons who
argue thus : “ I, with my wife and family, live in one room,
for which I have to pay 3s. 6d. or 4s. a-week. I pay it with
difficulty, all the more because the rates are so heavy, and
which I know come upon me in the rent, and which I am
forced to pay. And I know that Lord So-and-so, and
others like him, have houses with 150 rooms, and large
grounds about the house, for which they are rated at next to
nothing.” It is a bad thing that this sort of spirit should
get abroad, and that these comments should be justly made.
They who profit by the present system and escape liabilities
would do well not to accentuate the distinction between the
poor and the rich by any feeling that gross injustice exists.
I desire to raise no prejudice against the opulent. I
have always, to the best of my powers, attacked the
theories of Socialism; but unless something is done, and
that speedily, in the direction of my motion, there will be a
growing and dangerous feeling of grudge and dissatisfaction
at the escape of wealthy men from local contributions. It
has always been held to be a sound principle of finance to
�20
tax luxuries when you can get at them. And if a peison
thinks proper to have half-a-dozen fine houses, when he
lives only in one, he ought to be equitably assessed on the
whole.
I- contriThe last part of my motion refers to the estate of the
lon of
ground landlord. The House will remember that latterly
line]
s to
there has been a debate upon ground-rents, and at first I
al
ation thought that as the matter had been already discussed I.
had better not press this clause; but I determined to retain
it, because I shall treat it in a totally different way from that
in which it was handled in the late debate. I have no
special grudge against ground-rents. I see no more reason
for specially taxing the lucky purchaser of land than for
taxing exceptionally the gains of a successful lawyer or
physician. All these are various forms of fertility in the
economical sense, and all of them have an equal right to be
protected against rapine. I am no believer in the doctrine
that the State should appropriate the unearned increment,
and that for reasons which I will not trouble the House
with, though I have over and over again stated them in print.
What I do complain of is, that the property of the ground
landlord is constantly being swollen in value by the contri
butions of the tenant under our system of local taxation.
Let me illustrate my position by my own experience. I
live in a city seven-tenths of the building land of which at
least is the property of Corporations. The inhabitants of
the city were very properly restrained from polluting the
Thames with sewage, and works had to be undertaken at
the cost of some ^150,000, with a view of putting a final
stop to the nuisance. But the whole cost of paying the
interest and extinguishing the principal is put upon the
occupiers, who are thus engaged in improving the estate of
the ground landlord at their own expense, and of course, in
time to come, to their own detriment, as they may have to
pay an enhanced rent on the improved estate. But when
you come to the metropolis the burden is still more unfair
and crushing. London occupiers are engaged in improving
the estates of the ground landlords, and paying increased
rents upon their own unexhausted improvements at a rate
�2I
which, if it were exhibited in Ireland, would make the hair
of Irish members stand on end and very effectually loosen
their tongues. I find from the latest reports that the whole
amount of local debts for local improvements, and for the
most part on unproductive expenditure, is no less, in
England and Wales, than ^159,000,000. The whole of
this, interest and principal—for most of it has been raised in
a terminable stock—is liquidated by the occupier ; that is, he
is engaged in England to the extent of ^159,000,000 in
making valuable estates, the whole value of which, by the
way, his presence has created still more valuable. This is
particularly the case with the great settled estates, many of
which came into the hands of the ancestors of their present
owners by Heaven knows what means. I will take an
example : the Covent Garden estate was originally the home
farm of Westminster Abbey. It was squeezed out of that
corporation by the founder of the house of Bedford, who
was a favourite of Henry VIII. Now, in the course of my
researches I have come across a lease of this estate granted
by the Earl of Bedford in the reign of Elizabeth. The
whole estate was, I believe, about 300 acres, and it was
let for a term of thirty years for about ^40 per annum.
I do not quite know what it is let for now, but I am pretty
sure that it is a multiple of six figures. Now, this estate has
been improved by the tenants without the Duke having
been called upon to lay out a single shilling upon it, and
everything which is necessary in order to make the estate
possess any market value whatever is constantly being paid
by the occupier. This is what people see is grossly unfair ;
it is what they resent. And it is what, at an early date, the
Legislature will, I trust, thoroughly remedy. What, I should
like to ask, is necessary towards making a locality habitable ?
Roads must be made and repaired ; water must be supplied ;
and sewage must be carried off. If justice were done I
contend that the highway rate, the water rate, and the
sewage rate should be paid by the ground landlord, and that
they should be deducted from the stipulated rent just in the
same way as income-tax is. They would then be paid by
the landlord, for I suppose that the landowner would hardly
�22
contend that he makes his tenant pay the income-tax, as he
is accustomed to say his tenant would have to pay an
enhanced rent if he, the landlord, paid any part of the local
taxation.
ie necesI cannot help thinking that this question ought not only
y of
to be debated but decided. The early solution of it appears
:edy
to be imperatively necessary. There is a great deal of dis
n.
content abroad. People come to me from poor districts,
and from rich ones too, complaining of the ever-increasing
rates which they have to pay on property which has been
enhanced in value by the previous outlay of occupiers.
And, as the House knows, this ever-growing assessment
affects every form of local taxation and service. The pre
sent burden of rates is such, and its incidence is so ob
viously unfair, that public bodies do not dare to undertake
many useful and even necessary works because they dread
the indignation of the occupiers at the increased rate which
would be involved in the operation. I will illustrate what I
mean. The House is aware that the Royal Commission on
the state of the Thames condemned the sewage outfalls at
Barking Creek and Crossness, and called on the Metropoli
tan Board of Works to purify the Thames. The Board of
Works prepared a scheme for carrying the sewage down
from these two points to Canvey Island, where there was
ample space for desiccating the sewage so completely as to
send out nothing but pure water into the Thames. Why
has it not been done ? The scheme would have cost
^4,000,000, and the Board of Works hardly dared to put
this charge on the ratepayers, who would be compelled,
under the existing law, to meet the whole expense, princi
pal and interest. Now, I submit that a very considerable
part of the expense to be incurred in carrying out these
permanent works should be borne by the ground landlords,
in proportion to the extent and value of their estates—
seeing that they reap the benefit of these improvements.
This, Sir, is my contention. I have not stated the case
as fully as it might be stated. I hope I have dealt with it
temperately. Some alteration of the law, in respect of the
matters I have referred to, is, I am convinced, imperatively
�23
necessary. It is wise and politic to palliate or remove
that galling sense of injustice which the public feel so
keenly when they see and know that they are improving the
estates of their neighbours out of their own hard-earned
incomes. The struggle of life is hard enough now, and dis
content at unmerited wrongs may grow into a danger. At
any rate, it is high time that this most important subject of
local taxation, and particularly of its incidence and distribu
tion, should not only be considered by Parliament but dealt
with. I have trespassed long enough on the patience of the
House, and shall conclude by moving the resolution of
which I have given notice, and of which, I may add, I gave
notice in the late Parliament.
The following was the motion :—
“ That the present system under which, in England and
Wales, the first Incidence of Local Taxation (with some
slight exceptions) falls on the occupier and not on the
owner of lands and tenements, is unjust; that such owners
ought in equity to bear at least a moiety of these charges;
that the system under which country mansions are rated is
unfair; and that the owners of ground rents in towns are
liable to no part of those charges, the outlay of which is
essential in order that the property may possess any market
able value whatever.”
Sir Richard Paget moved the following amendment:—
“ That, while the apportionment of the payment of Rates
between landlord and tenant may be desirable, as part of
a complete scheme for remedying the admitted inequalities
of the Incidence of Local Taxation, this House is of opinion
that the financial injustice complained of can only be
removed by a comprehensive measure, and that an equit
able readjustment of taxation as between real and personal
property, is urgently required.”
On a division, Sir R. Paget’s amendment was negatived
by 207—188, including tellers. And on the main question
being put, it was affirmed by 218—178, including tellers.
The division was a strictly party one. It is noteworthy
that all the Metropolitan Tories who were present voted
against the resolution.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local taxation, especially in English cities and towns: a speech delivered in the House of Commons, on March 23rd, 1886
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rogers, James E. Thorold
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Stamp on title page for Cobden Club. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Cassell & Company, Limited
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N553
Subject
The topic of the resource
Taxation
Parliament
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Local taxation, especially in English cities and towns: a speech delivered in the House of Commons, on March 23rd, 1886), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Taxation