'A •.?^ 1 ^ 6' V '.-^f. *'/ t 1 ^ 'c'*« '^V" ^ >;W {'.^<-<'^ ^*:-- ^•-■-%v f/tJ: ^'^^'i^^ ;!-': '■ ?^ ^ "L I E) RA FLY OF THE UN IVER5ITY Of ILLI NOIS ./■ # #* n^ SPEECH ON LOCAL TAXiTION SIR MASSEY LOPES, Bart., M.P. In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, Sir Massey Lopes rose to move the following resolution : — *' That inasmuch as many of the existing and contem- plated charges on the local rates are for national purposes, and that it is neither just nor politic that sucb charges should be levied exclusively from one description of pro- perty (viz., houses and land), this House is of opinion that it is the duty of the Government to inquire forthwith into the incidence of Imperial as well as Local Taxation, and take such steps as shall insure that every description of property shall equitably contribute to all national burdens." The hon. baronet said, that though this was not the first time that he had ventured to call the attention of the House to the subject of Local Taxation, yet he freely admitted that on each successive occasion he had only become more impressed with the gravity of the subject, and with the difficulty and responsibility that attached to any one who presumes to grapple with so large and so com- plicated a question ; he did not feel on the present occa- sion more confident, inasmuch as he was unable to add much fresh matter or argument to what he had on previous occasions adduced ; he felt also that the facts and figures which he had already brought forward had never been impugned either in or out of the House ; it was therefore unnecessary for him to defend them ; it would be futile lor him to waste the time of the House in repeating them. Though he was painfully sensible of his inability to do justice to this important subject^ yet he felt very sanguine with regard to the result, and strong with regard to the merits of the case. He rejoiced to think that this question now stood in a very different position from that which it occupied three or four years ago. At that time they had to contend with a vast deal of apathy, indifference, and ignorance with reference to this question; but now he thought the popular attention had been aroused; the pubhc had begun to investigate the matter and demand inquiry, and that was all he wanted. No Government could afford any longer to dally with this question or evade it by false issues. It was futile for them to attempt to disarm us with petty inquuies or vague generalities. The supporters of this movement contended for a great principle, and they asked the Government to deal mththat principle in a comprehensive and statesmanlike manner. He thought he might moat forcibly illustrate the magni- tude and importance of this subject by comparing the different and distinct amounts levied and expended in one year by Imperial and Local Taxation. He might be allowed to preface that comparison by reminding the House that the total estimated annual Income of England and ' Wales at the present time amounted in round numbers to £700,000,000 ; that the amount assessed to the Income Tax was rather more than ^300,000,000, that the amount of the rateable value of the real property in this country was only £100,000,000, and that this £100,000,000 bore the whole of our Local Taxation; in other words, £6 out of every £7 of the aggregate annual income of the country escaped local burdens, and contributed nothing towards the relief of the Poor and various other National burdens. The right hon. gentleman, the President of the Poor Law Board, told the House last session that the amount raised by Local Taxation in the United Kingdom was £30^000,000, and so far as he (Sir M. Lopes) had been able to make an inves- tigation — for the right hon. gentleman had not given them any figures — he did not believe that that amount was at all exaggerated. But in the observations he was about to make, he would deal only with the Local Taxation which was levied in England and "Wales, and for this reason, because he was far more conversant with those details. He hoped that other members who were better acquainted with the local burdens of Scotland and Ireland would endeavour to ventilate their own grievances. The amended Local Taxation Returns for 1868 amounted to £16,800,000, or in round numbers to £17,000,000. But he submitted that those figures did not comprise the whole amount now levied by Local Taxation In the first place, he might remind the right hon. gentleman that the poor rates had very much increased since 1868. In the second place, he did not see in those returns any figures which represented the amount raised for sanitary and «ewerage regulations. He did not see any amount for turnpikes, nor did he see — of course, in the return for 1868 it could not be — any amount for Education. He would remind the right hon. gentleman that for education alone a threepenny rate on ^100,000,000 would amount to ^61,250,000 ; and a sixpenny rate for education — he believed we should not do our education for much less — would amount to a£2,500,000. He thought he might say, without exag- geration, that the amount raised by Local Taxation in England and Wales was in round figures at least £20,000,000. He could vouch for the correctness of that statement. Well, if so, one-seventh of the annual income of England and Wales discharged all the obligations of Local Taxation, one-third only of that which paid Income tax. Eighty-two per cent, of the annual aggregate value of the income of England and Wales was exempt from Local Taxation. If his statements were correct, and he challenged the right hon. gentleman to prove they were not, one-fifth of the total annual income of real property was paid every year in local burdens, or every five years they paid in local burdens the whole amount of the aggre- gate income of real property, and exactly one- eighth of its value in poor rate assessment alone ; such exceptional exactions to which the owners of real property were sub- jected, were monstrous, intolerable, and almost incredible. He would now endeavour briefly to compare the amount raised by Local Taxation with the amount annually raised by Imperial Taxation. The estimate of Imperial Taxation for 18704 was ^67,000,000. If you deducted from that amount ^627,000,000 for the interest of tlie national debt, you had a940,000,000 for defraying the expenses of the army and navy, for the civil service, and for all the purposes |of modern government. You had that £40,000,000 of Impe- rial Taxation as against £30,000,000 of Local Taxation. But the comparison did not end there. Imperial Taxation was simple, it was intelligible, it was annually decreasing, and was being annually revised. Local Taxation, on the contrary, was a Chaos. It was confusion confounded, it was a sort of thing which, as Lord Dundreary would say, no fellow could understand. It was annually increasing, and the basis of it had not been altered for 300 years. Q^he public at large had no reason whatever to complain of Imperial Taxation. It was said, and he believed it, that it was equitably imposed, systematically collected, and economically expended. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who held the purse strings, was generally supposed to be a close-fisted gentleman, and he was responsible to the House and to the nation for Imperial Taxation. But Local Taxation was unjustly levied ; it was the most oppressive part of our public burdens, it was unsystematicaily collected, and, moreover, the number of rating authorities might almost be called legion, and there was little or no responsibility among them. Further, one did not know for what purposes Local Taxation was raised, nor in what proportionate amounts it was expended. The poor, the labouring classes, had no reason to complain of our Imperial Taxation, but the dissatisfaction and discontent with regard to Local Taxation were keenly felt. More than that, in proportion to their means, the poorer classes had to bear a vastly larger share of our local burdens than the wealthier. Then, the Imperial Taxation, towards which every class of the com- munity, and every description of property, contributed, was aimually decreasing ; Local Taxation, towards which only one class of the community and one description of property contributed, was annually increasing. Further, not only the privileges which had been conferred on the owners of real property in return for bearing these excep- tional burdens had been removed, but there had been imposed on them a multitude of new and exceptional imposts for national objects, for which they had received no corresponding or compensating advantages. Since 1840 Parliament had annually passed an Exemption Act, and what was its object? To exempt personal property from what was legally due from it, and to throw another increased proportion of burden upon real property. Since 1846, when the Repeal of the Corn Laws was carried, £51,000,000 of Imperial Taxation had been remitted, while £31,000,000 had been imposed, leaving a balance of £20,000,000 on the side of remission, Well, what relief had been given to Local Taxation ? ISot a single iota. On the contrary, while all other interests had had remis- sion, real property had been actually burdened in reverse proportion to their remissions. He was doubtful whether Sir R. Peel had not remitted a small portion of their prose- cution expenses since that time, but he challenged the right hon. gentleman opposite to name anything else. Well, then, he complained not only that they had no remissions, but that new charges for new objects, for the benefit of the common weal, and not for the exclusive benefit of the class from whom you levy them, had been imposed on the owners of real property, that Parliament was victimising one class for the benefit of the community, and imposing national obligations and responsibilities exclusively on one description of property. That was most unjust^ and most impolitic. Now, why this palpable injustice, this galling' and glaring anomaly ? It had not been a sudden operation, for then it would have met with serious and successful resistance. The process had been slow, gradual, and insidious ; it had begun with permissive legislation, and then, when the thin edge of the wedge had been inserted, the Government drove it home, and made legislation com- pulsory. There was another reason. All Governments, without exception, when they succeeded to office had courted popularity by trying to reduce Imperial Taxation, by a cry of retrenchment. That programme had not always been very honest ; but it had been very specious, very popular, and very plausible. It tickled the masses, and was a capital electioneering cry at the hustings. But the eclat consequent on any reduction of Local Taxation would bo comparatively small, and yet the benefit to the working classes would be eqaaily great. To effect their object, and gain popularity, all Governments have reduced Imperial Taxation by gradually transferring strictly national objects to local purposes, and thus it is that real property (lands and houses) have come to bear the burden of carrying out most of the social and moral reforms and improvements of the nineteenth century. If we had reduced Local Taxation in the same degree as Imperial, it was the poorer classes alone, for the most part, that would have felt the benefit. Now, what was the difference between a rate and a tax to those who paid it? It was a distinction without a difference. The word " rate" was a synonym for the word "tax." Both were arbitrary, both compulsory. The remedy for default was much the same. Why, then, salve and gloss them over by calling them '"rates?" Because it tended to divert attention. Rates were encroaching, they were adhesive, they stuck, they had a tendency to crystallise and become separate properties ; they became rent charges in perpetuity, and if those concerned did not adopt the motto, 2^^inci2)iis obsta, they might depend upon it these charges would gradually increase. He had compared the amount levied for Imperial Taxation, £40,000,000, with the amount raised for local burdens, £30,000,vj00 ; he would make but one other comparison. He would now compare the latter amount with the whole revenue raised in any of the second-rate European Powers — with Spain or Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland, or Belgium — and he could assure the House that the whole amount raised in any of these second-rate kingdoms for imperial purposes did not reach ^14,000,000, or not half what this country expended in Local Taxation. He would analyse and classify this large sum of £20,000,000, and, for the sake of perspicuity, divide it into two parts — namely, .£11,800,000, or in rciund num- bers £12,000,000, raised for National, and £8,000,000 for local purposes. The distinction was essential, because, in the first place, the £12,000,000 were raised for the benefit of the whole community, and the £8,000,000 for the exclusive benefit of those who paid it. In the next place, the object of the £12,000,000 was universal, the levy direct and compulsory ; and, in the third place, it was made absolute and arbitrary by Parliament. But the purpose of £8,000,000 was local, the object limited, the levy volun- tary ; it was indirect, and, what T\'as of more importance, it was controlled by local decision. He did not conceive that the owners of real property had any claim on the imperial exchequer for the £8,000,000, and therefore he should not further allude to it ; his observations would only refer to the £12,000,000, the amount levied for National purposes ; and with respect to this portion of the charge he would show to what extent it had increased. To show the increased and increasing amount of this portion of our local burdens, connected and unconnected B 10 with the poor law expenditure, he would compare the first year for Avhich we had any reliable statistics, 1776, with the last year. The total amount in 1776 was £1,720,000 ; in 1870 it was £11,744,000. Compare the First Year of any Reliable Statistics with 1870. Total amount levied. For Poor. For other purposes. 1776 £1,720,000 1870 £11,774,000 £1,556,000 £7,673,000 £164,000 £4,100,000 Increase in last Thirty Years, since 1839. For all purposes. For Poor. For other purposes. £6,161,000 I £2.550,000 £2,616,000 or 109 per cent. | or 86 per cent. or ] 74 per cent. Increase in last Ten Years, since 1859. £3,666,000 or 4,5 per cent. £2,115,000 or 38 per cent. £1,500,000 or 57 per cent. In the three last years the increase for poor alone was £1,233,000. In 1867 and 1868 the increase for relief of poor alone was more than £1,000^000 ; in 1869 the proportion of increase was not so great,, but the price of wheat was 10s. a quarter lower. He found from the latest official report that we had on the 1st of July last (1870) 8500 more paupers than on the 1st of July of the previous year. At the present moment, one out of every twenty of our population was a pauper. In the year 1834, when the poor law was established, only one-tenth of the amount levied under it was expended for purposes not connected with the poor ; last year one-third was so expended. He wished, then, to impress on the House that to call the £12,000,000, to which he was refer- ring, money levied for the relief of the poor, was a misnomer — it was a misappropriation ; it was collecting money under false pretences. Although incorporated in the poor law assessment, one-third of that £12,000,000 was ex- pended in purposes which were wholly unconnected with the poor. He had deemed it to be his duty to more minutely dissect the expenditure of the £12,000,000, and he would endeavour to particularise it under three heads. There 11 was, in the first place, £7,500,000 of the amount levied under the poor rate assessment expended solely for the use of the poor; secondly, there was £1,000,000 levied under the poor rate assessment, but expended for purposes unconnected with the support of the poor ; while there was, lastly, £3,300,000 annually collected by means of the county rate, and which was also expended for purposes unconnected with the poor. Now, he would take four or five charges under each of those heads. Taking first the sum of £7,500,000, which was really ex- pended in the relief of the poor, he found that the item for in and outdoor maintenance was £5,224,000, and he would beg the House to bear in mind that of that amount only £1,546,000 was spent in indoor, the whole of the remainder (£3.677,000) being expended on outdoor maintenance ; while in Ireland, which was a much poorer country, scarcely anything was laid out under that head. The next charge was a sum of £711,000 for the maintenance ot lunatics; after that came a charge of £805,000 for the Salaries, Rations, and Superannuation allowances of poor law officers ; and then there was a further sum of £718,000, which came under the head of Common Charges. Now, he did not intend to dwell on the first and largest charge — that for in and outdoor maintenance. What he wished more particularly to impress on the House was the enor- mous increase of new impositions. He agreed, however, in toto with the statement which had been made by that eminent Whig statesman, Sir C Lewis— whose loss that House would never cease to regret — to the effect that ** all income ought to contribute to the maintenance of the poor." He also concurred with the report of the Com- mittee of the House of Lords in 1850, in which it was set forth " that the relief of the poor was a National object, that every description of Property ought to contribute towards their relief, and that the Act of Elizabeth contemplated sucli a contribution according to the ability of every in- habitant." He would only ask in addition to that, whether, 12 after all, a poor rate was not a police rate; whether, if there were not a poor rate, there would be any protec- tion for either person or property? A poor rate, in his opinion, was as essential to internal defence against the dangerous classes, as our army and navy were for the purpose of external defence ; and for both descriptions of defence it was, he contended, equally the duty of the Government to provide. He would, in the next place, advert to the charge of £711,000 for the maintenance of Lunatics — a charge against which he strongly protested. Besides the sum which he had just mentioned, £310,000 had last year been raised by means of the county rate for the purpose of building lunatic asylums, while there was a further charge of £49,000 for the cost of casual lunatic paupers ; so that the actual amount paid last year under the head of which he was speaking was £1,070,000. Now, lunacy was a malady which was, unfortunately, increasing, while the cost of treatment was also rapidly becoming greater. In 1851 the number of lunatics was only 21,000, or 23 in every 1000 paupers, while in 1869 it was 45,000, or 44 in every 1000 paupers, the increase in the ratio borne by the number of lunatics to the number of paupers being 91 per cent. The cost, he might add, of our lunatics, which in 1862 was £482,000, had advanced in 1869 to £711,000, so that in a period of seven years it had in- creased by a sum of £229,000, or 47 per cent. The cost of a sane pauper was, it appeared, £9 15s. per annum ; that of an insane pauper £26, exclusive of the charge for buildings. Now, he maintained that lunacy was a Na- tional calamity, and that it ought to be made a National charge and responsibility. It was a dispensation of Pro- vidence, which was not confined to one class, and which was not attributable to any special cause — it was no special creation of land or houses. Its increase was attri- buted to causes independent of pauperism. It was most unjust, therefore, in his opinion, that the charge for the 18 support of lunatics should be levied only on one descrip- tion of property. He had the highest authority for saying the charge ought to be a National charge. In the dis- cussion on the Irish Church Bill two years ago the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) at the head of the Go- vernment laid it down as an axiom that Irish Church property was National property, and that as National property it ought to be applied to National uses, adding that the surplus ought to be devoted to the relief of irre- trievable suffering and calamity, and he particularised lunatic asylums and hospitals. He would read the right hon gentleman's own words on 15th of July, 1869 : — " What are the obligations in respect of the relief of distress to which land or real property are commonly, by the laws of civilised Christian countries, held to be subject ? " They are these : — " You are bound to deal with the destitute, and to meet the wants of the destitute, as far as necessity can be said to exist, but not beyond. " There is no law, either in Ireland or in any other country, which declares that persons of unsound mind generally shall have a right to receive that treatment which their peculiar state of mind requires. " The poor law imposes no such obligation. The poor law obliges you to relieve the destitution of a lunatic, but no more. (Yes, yes.) Well, the laws in this country compel you to relieve lunatics only as you relieve other persons, and to prevent their doing mischief, but it does not require you to apply to their case the difficult and costly processes to which recourse is had in those most benevolent insti- tutions — lunatic asylums. And for this plain reason, that a legal provision must be raised for classes of society which go down to the verge of destitution themselves, and you would inflict injustice if you trusted to the law solely for this kind of calamity'^ He desired no better testimony than that which he had just quoted. He with confidence claimed the vote of the 14 Prime Minister, so far at least as Imiatic asylums were concerned. They were National, not local institutions, and he was sure no one in that House or out of it would, when appealed to, decline or ignore the duty of paying his quota towards the relief of a malady which is no respecter of persons, and knows no distinction between persons or property. He now came to the next item of charge, that for the Salaries, Rations, and Superannuation allowances of poor law officers. There were at least 1400 poor law officers, and their cost was rapidly increasing. In 1869 the in- crease was 85,000 ; in two years ('68 and '69) it had increased £5SfiOO. The Poor Law Board authorised superannuations of poor law officers in 1864, and in 1870 of medical officers, without offering to contribute to the cost. They had nevertheless admitted the principle of contribution. They paid the whole of the Auditors, the salaries of the schoolmasters, and half the Salaries of the Medical men. Why should they not extend this principle of contribution and pay half the salary of the master and matron, of the chaplain and the relieving officer? One good reason why they should do so was that they exer- cised the most arbitrary power over these officials, appoint- ing and dismissing them, and regulating their salaries and their superannuations ; and it was quite out of the power of any board of guardians to give a sixpence to any of their officials without the leave and license of the Poor Law Board. If the salaries of these officials were paid by the State, it would not only be a relief to the ratepayers, but there would be more uniformity in the scale of salaries, and this would be a great advantage. No officials were so badly paid as Poor Law Medical officers, whose salaries were barely sufficient to provide the drugs they were obliged to dispense ; and the right hon. gentleman might fairly be asked to contribute further than he now did to these officials. The fourth item to which he would advert was that of 15 Establishment charges, consisting of building, repairs, printing, drugs, and clothing. All these expenses were incurred on the requisition of the poor law inspectors. He was told sometimes that it was necessary to have local control in order to keep down local expenditure ; but it would also be desirable to have a little more control over the expenditure imposed upon the poor law unions by the Government. Perhaps, to gain a reputation for zeal and energy at Whitehall, the inspectors were inclined some- times to recommend improvements and alterations which the local authorities thought unnecessary. However, if the Government paid one-half of these Establishment charges, he felt sure the money would not be expended by either party improperly or unnecessarily. Such an arrangement would be a very salutary check on needless expenditure. Before last year — since which time there had been a considerable addition to the hospitals and fever infirmaries of the country — ^69, 000,000 had actually been expended in the erection of union houses alone — all paid for by the ratepayers. He based his claim for additional assistance towards poor law expenditure upon these grounds. Of late years we had become more humane and charitable in administering the old law of Elizabeth. We sympathise more with the pri- vations and necessities of our fellow-men, and, rejoicing at this change, he was willing and anxious to pay his fair quota. But what right had the owners and representa- tives of personal property in this House to take any credit for this improvement ? What sacrifices had they made to obtain it? They had been philanthropic and generous at the expense of the owners of real property. Justice ought to precede generosity. They had not contributed one fraction towards the improvements effected in the administration of the poor law. Hon. gentlemen sheltered themselves under the antiquated Act of EHzabeth, which, as they said, imposed upon real property alone the burden of maintaining the whole of the poor of the country. But 16 when that Act was framed there was little property in this country except realty, which then bore not only all the local, but all the imperial taxes ; so that, if the argument was good for one, it was good for the other class of taxa- tion. Since the time of Elizabeth, Capital had been accu- mulated by the labour of the poor, pauperism had thus been created or fostered, and now those chiefly responsible, who had benfited the most, and derived everything they had from the labour of the poor man, tried to evade their due responsibility. In those days agriculture employed nearly the whole of the labouring population ; now it employed a comparatively small proportion, only one-fourteenth per cent. Why, then, impose those heavy burdens upon Real Property alone, when the whole conditions of employment were changed? We had but recently to deplore a national calamity in the sudden loss of her Majesty's ship Captain. The Impe- rial Government had given one year's pay to the widows and orphans of the poor men who went down in that unfortunate vessel. At the year's end these widows and orphans must go to the union ; the owners of real property would alone have to maintain them. The brave sailors sacrificed their lives for the whole country, and not for one class; but the representatives of personal property ignored their responsibility, and would contribute nothing towards the maintenance of those who were left totally unprovided for. The same was true of the widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors killed in action, as well as discharged soldiers and sailors, who, when no longer of use, were turned over to the union, the owners of real property alone having to maintain them. In the case of commissioned or non-commissioned officers killed in action, provision was made for their widows and orphans, and to make a distinction between them and the men under them was impolitic and unjust. The Secretary for War would have very little difficulty ii*. getting the recruits he wanted, if the men were sure that if anything happened to 17 them the State would take charge of those they left behind them. He now came to the sums levied from the rates for purposes imconnected with the poor. These were the registration of births and marriages, a charge imposed upon real property in 1838, amounting last year to i677,000 ; the charge for vaccinations, imposed in 1841, and amounting last year to £64,000; and parliamentary registra- tion, a charge imposed in 1845, and amounting to £71,000. These three objects were certainly National. Every one was equally iDterested in taking measures to abate that terrible scourge of small-pox which is creating a regular panic, and destroying thousands. Neither rank nor wealth confer any immunity from this malady — it was no respecter of persons, all were equally interested in checking its progress. Lastly, there was the item of £660,000 for highway boards, created in 1865. That was the amount raised where highway boards had been adopted; there was, besides, £920,000 raised by poor rate assessment for the maintenance of parish roads, and £1,000,000 for turnpike tolls. Turnpikes were being gradually absorbed, and upwards of £2,500,000 was raised last year for the main- tenance of roads which used to be called the Queen's high- ways, and should, therefore, be paid for by all the Queen's subjects. Why was the capitalist to ride and drive over our roads scot free, when the poor labourer who walked over them was obliged to contribute to their maintenance ? Any and every man could indict a road out of repair Why was not any and every man equally liable for main- tenance ? They were constructed for National and Impe- rial purposes, for the conveyance of mails and our armies, and now, when they were superseded by railways, the Government abolished the tolls. A tax was levied on railways in proportion to the number of first and second- class passengers, and he thought that the amount ought to be handed over to those who now had to pay for the maintenance of roads. 18 He would now refer to the third and last bead, viz., £3,500,000 levied by county rate assessment for purposes entirely unconnected witli tbe relief of the poor. Tbese county rate cbarges were all imposed for National objects. Their name was legion — their objects were universal. They all came under one category— their general and especial object was the protection of life and property, without any distinction of persons or property. The monied millionaire, the wealthy capitalist, required even more protection than the poor peasant, the mechanic, or the shopkeeper, and yet they contributed comparatively nothing out of their superfluity towards these objects. He held in his hand a return moved for by Lord Henniker in 1867, showing the total amount levied in that year by county rates, giving the proportion that was under the control of the magistrates and that which was strictly statutory. The total amount levied was £1,744,000. The portion which was statutory, over which the magistrates had no control, was £1,461,000. The portion over which they exercised independent control was only £283,000, and this included bridges, salaries, printing, and other miscellaneous payments, so that 82 per cent, was raised under the provisions of Acts of Parliament, and only 18 per cent, was at the discretion of magistrates. More than half the counties had already presented petitions either to this House or to the Home Secretary from the magistrates in quarter sessions assembled, praying the House to take this matter into their consideration, and to transfer the cost of many of the National charges to the Imperial Exchequer. He would now endeavour to enumerate some of the chief items of these county rate charges. The most important one was the Police. In 1869 the cost of rural police was j£ 7 19,000 ; of lock-up houses, ^£35,000; conveyance of prisoners, £19,000; total, J6773,000. The Government allowance was only £147,000. Instead of one-fourth, the contribution received from the Govern- ment scarcely amounted to one-fifth of the total expendi- 19 ture. The Government allowed one-fourth only towards the pay and clothing of the police, nothing towards the police stations and other miscellaneous expenses, and yet they did not allow these stations to be built unless they had approved of the plans. He wished to point out to the House that this charge was doubling the county expen- diture in every single county in England and Wales. In Devonshire the charge for the police alone exceeded all other county charges last year by £5000. The police expenditure was compulsory, the control of the magistrates over it being merely nominal. It was true that they appointed the Chief Constable, but they had no power to dismiss that officer ; he was amenable to the Home Secre- tary alone; the magistrates could not allocate a single policeman, they had no power to interfere. They had a very limited control with reference to the salaries of the police. The Home Secretary imposed a minimum and maximum. The discretional margin was very small. More- over, if the Recommendations, or rather Orders of the Home Office Inspectors were not carried out with reference to an increase of the force, or any other matter, the counties were immediately threatened with a withdrawal of the Government allowance. Magistrates were power- less with such a lever, and were reluctantly obUged to comply with all demands. It was ground for complaint, too, that the police, besides being employed in their proper duties, were used by the Government for other and National purposes. Only recently the Home Secretary sent an order that they were to be used to distribute notices to the reserved forces, and they were also directed, like recruiting sergeants, to inform the public of the con- ditions of enlistment. Moreover, by the bill of last year, the Home Secretary imposed on the police the responsi- bility of granting licences and certificates to pedlars, but at the same time nothing was allowed to the counties as an equivalent for such an employment of the police force. These were novelties, and might be bad precedents ; at 20 all events they were additional reasons why the Govern- ment should contribute a larger quota towards their expenses. He maintained that the police would be more effective if the Government undertook in England, as in Ireland, the whole responsibility of managing them and the charge of their maintenance, for at present it often happened that, owing to the variety of jurisdictions, (offenders were able to escape by flying from one jurisdic- tion to another. The next county rate charge to which he wished to call the attention of the House is that for Prisons and the ad- ministration of Justice. Surely the maintenance of order and justice are commonweal purposes. Why should the counties pay for the maintenance of prisoners before con- viction ? Why should real property alone pay for the erection and maintenance of prisons, reformatories, &c. ? There was expended by the counties last year the sum of £664,000 for these purposes, and the allowance received by the Government was £204,000, leaving a balance against the counties of £460,000. In Devonshire the average paid under this head for the last three years, exclusive of any Government allowance, was £3600, and he asked why should the owners and occupiers of real property be so taxed for the maintenance of prisons and the administration of justice, seeing that those objects concerned other classes of the community quite as much ? The mihtia also was essentially a National and constitu- tional force ; yet the coimties were called upon to provide storehouses for them, and last year they expended £27,000 under this head. In Devonshire £22,700 had been ex- pended on this object since 1863, and the Government had contributed only £950. During the Crimean war bodies of militia were sent abroad and throughout the country, thus completely destroying their local character, and now it was proposed to take the appointment of officers out of the hands of the Lords Lieutenant. But, notwithstanding this, the owners of real property were now called on to 21 provide ban-acks for the militia. They might equally well be expected to provide money for the fortifications at Plymouth or Portsmouth, or barracks for the regular troops. Then as to the Coroners. This was a payment pre- scribed by Parliament. The charge on this account last year was £64,000, but did not coroners form part of the administration of justice ? What was the use of a coroner ? What was the nominal use of a coroner ? His office was designed for the protection of life by inquiring into ell cases of sudden death, and, therefore, his duties were National in character, and the expenses of office thus should be defrayed out of the imperial purse. Besides these expenses, the counties had a debt of two millions and a-half for charges on account of building gaols, lunatic asylums, &g. Not only had the old anomalies in taxation been continued, but new ones had been introduced, and fresh impositions were continuously being added. We are told that the expenses of Parliamentary elections and the erection of Militia barracks are to be added to the rates. Sanitary and Sewage regulations are looming in the dis- tance, as well as the maintenance of all turnpike roads. We complain that there is the same basis of assessable property now as when real property was the only property of the country. It was fair and just three centuries ago, when there was no capital or accumulated wealth, but not adapted to modern times, new circumstances, and present requirements. The present system of levying rates is full of anomalies and inequalities. It is the result of compromises and conditions that had been entirely changed. There was no definite principle, no consistent plan, no uniform system of valuation. Deductions varied in every union according to the caprice of assessment com- mittees. Though the conditions of National wealth had entirely changed, the condition under which local rates were levied, remained unaltered. The incidence of im- perial burdens was periodically revised. He asked that 22 the same might be done by local burdens ; that the owners of wealth at present exempt from local taxation might be placed on the same footing as owners of real property. The fundholder was as interested in good government and good order as the owner or occupier of real property, for his very security was the stability of the constitution itself. The mortgagee was as morally bound to pay his share towards local burdens as the mortgagor, who not only paid upon his full income, but upon the reputation of being the owner of property, the proceeds of which were enjoyed by the mortgagee. Shareholders of railway com- panies paid local burdens as real property holders, and their large debts were not considered; they were not only liable to local rates as real property, but to probate and legacy duty as personalty, and besides they paid Govern- ment duty; but debenture and preference shareholders paid no local burdens, and received their income without deduction. The shipping interest also entailed great ex- penditure in civil and military establishments ; it required protection at home and abroad ; its operations tended to increase pauperism, especially in our large towns ; but latterly the shipping interest had become exempt from local taxation. The case of mercantile communities was ably dealt with by the hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) last year. He made a most able and honest speech, but he would quote his words. He said : — " The principal wealth of our large towns is the commercial^ manufacturing, and trading capital, and yet it is exactly this capital which does not contribute, except incidentally, to Local Taxation. I maintain that the classes who possess this property do not contribute their, fair share towards the rates levied to support in sickness, accident, or poverty, those without whose labour their wealth would never have been created. They do not contribute upon their capital, because their capital, consisting chiefly of personalty, is, as a rule, exempted from liability. After much inquiry into this 23 subject I find that, broadly speaking, the percentage of his income that a man pays to the poor rates, is often in the inverse ratio to the amount of his income. The wealthier he is the smaller the percentage he pays. Take the case of a man doing a large business with only a moderately large office and warehouse. He only pays on the rent of his office or warehouse^ whatever his profits may be. I know the case of merchants who have made the calculation, and find that their rates vary from -^ to 2 per cent, on their incomes, while the average percentage of the rates of the porters in their employ amounts to 3f per cent, on their incomes. In other words, the labourers pay from twice to seven times as much, in pro- portion to their incomes^ as do their employers." He would leave the mercantile class in the hands of the hon. member, who, like himself, strongly advocated contri- butions in aid from the National Exchequer for those objects which were purely National. Contrast, on the other hand, the case of the clergy. There was no class who felt more severely the increase of rates. The clergy- man was a locum tenens only ; he had no property in his tithes. He had compounded, and though the value of the property in his parish may have doubled, he derived no proportionate benefit. He was rated, like no other class, on his professional income. Everyone knew how high he could be rated, and he was rated to the full ; he was not even allowed to deduct the salary of a curate, rendered necessary by the increase of years, or his parishioners, nor was he permitted to claim a rebate on account of expen- diture for the rebuilding or repairs of his house. Again, there are thousands of men in this great metropohs who live in Lodgings, and spend their time at their Clubs. The majority of them enjoy very large incomes, which they derive from the Funds or other personal property without any risk, without any labour or exertion on their part. They contribute nothing out of their superfluities towards these National objects. They use the Police and the Poor 24 Law, aud enjoy their social position scot free, while the poorest labourer and the humblest mechanic contribute to all these objects ; we see these poor men too frequently striving and struggling with poverty, pawning their clothes and their miserable furniture to keep themselves and their families out of the workhouse, and yet at the same time compelled to contribute towards the main- tenance of those who were already there. The simple question he had to submit to the House was, why £1000 a year derived from personal property, was less valuable to a man than the same amount derived from real property. Why it did not constitute the same ability to pay rates. The man whose income was derived from personal property had frequently no deductions to submit to, while the deductions made upon the income derived from real property were often very considerable. Yet £1000 a year from one of these descriptions of income was privileged and exempt, while the owner of land or houses paid £120 per annum (^or 12 per cent.) on this same amount of income on poor rate assessment alone. Talk of free trade, the present system, is a system of protection to personal property. What was the reason, and what was the excuse, for placing of late years all these taxes upon real property ? The answer would probably be, that it v/as necessary to have local control and local administration, in order to keep down expenditure. If that, however, had been the object, it had signally failed. He himself was an advo-. cate for local administration and local control, but he liked the reality and not a sham, and he maintained that the term self-government, as applied to the control of the magistrates and the poor law guardians, with reference to the amounts they had to dispose of, was a delusion and a mockery. He contended that magistrates were merely the instruments of the Legislature and the Home-office. They were called upon to levy and raise large sums of money over which they had little or no control. Again, 25 it was not in the power of the poor law guardians to increase the quarter's salary of one of their officers by ten shillings without the sanction of the Central power. They made great sacrifices of time and labour, but they had no more power to control poor law expenses than the expediture of the army and navy ; they were absolutely controlled by the Poor Law Board. The fact was that the Home-office and the Poor Law Board were centralising everything. Their inspectors were hard taskmasters, and compelled them to make bricks without supplying them with any straw. The passing of the Law of Settlement, and the Union Chargeability Act, had destroyed the interest which had formerly proved such an incentive to good local administration and local control. Before the passing of those measures he had had the honour of presiding over a country union. There were many unemployed who applied to them for relief, and the guardians never broke up without providing them with work. No doubt it was their interest to do so, but that interest had now been (destroyed. What was now everybody's business was nobody's. He Avas not finding fault with the Acts, which might be very good, but they had, he maintained, destroyed local interest. Another argument he had heard why houses and lands should be exceptionally taxed was because the value of this description of property had so much increased ; but why should a toll or fine be levied on this description of property more than any other which had increased in value ? He would ask how had land and houses increased in value, was it not by the investment of the capital, or personal property, of both the owner and occupier ? He would ask what right had they to tax capital invested in improvements in buildings, or in the soil, any more than they had to tax any other personal property ? Doubtless the value of house property had greatly increased, and though it was quite true that land in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns and railways had increased in value, the general value of land throughout the country 26 had increased to but a slight extent. The assessments had been recently very much raised, but the rents had not proportionately increased ; it must be borne in mind that rents of both lands and houses consisted of two parts — there was^ first, the natural rent, derived from the natural power of the soil ; and, secondly, the artificial, derived from outlay expended in buildings and improvements ; the latter, which represented the capital invested, far exceeded the former, and it was most impolitic and unjust excep- tionably to tax that capital. He maintained that these exceptional rates and taxes in capital employed either in agriculture, or in the erection of houses, were a great obstacle, and a heavy discourage- ment, to the investment of capital in either of those industries. They tended to paralyse industry and to alienate capital, for they were simply taxes upon energy and enterprise, inasmuch as every investment of capital in these directions tended to increase the investors' rating liability. It was the small amount of capital invested which prevented the resources of the land from being properly developed, and he maintained that by the course now pursued it was made penal to invest capital in land. Capital was the most sensitive and delicate thing in the world, and avoided heavy exactions, and exceptional impo- sitions; yet by these taxes they practically sentenced it to transportation, and drove it abroad to do in other countries what they ought to encourage it to do in this. They placed it under disabilities, and special disadvantages, by charging it with an additional and separate income tax of 12 per cent. Surely it was the interest of the com- munity to give encouragement to the application of British capital in productive enterprises at home, but if 5 per cent, could be obtained from public works abroad, without risk or labour, who would be satisfied with 3 per cent, for the same objects at home? This was, moreover, a poor man's question. What improves or deteriorates the condition of a labourer. 27 mechanic, or artisan ? Tiie increased or diminished demand for his only marketable commodity — labour. An increase of capital to a poor man meant more home-grown food, and cheaper necessaries of life ; a diminution of capital implied less home-grown food, and dearer necessaries of life, a smaller demand for labour, and therefore smaller wages, more pauperism, and therefore higher rates. The owners of house property were even still more interested in this question. In 1867 the proportion of poor rate charges on houses was £75,000,000 ; on land, tithes, &c., only £55,000.000. The increase on houses in fourteen years was £28,000,000, or 58 per cent; on land, £8,000,000, or 16 per cent. The effects of oppressive burdens on dwellings of labouring classes was most pernicious. It was impossible to exaggerate the sad and serious results of large families being herded promiscuously and crowded together, as they frequently were in this great metropolis, and in the large towns. The way in which large families were huddled together was disgraceful to the nation, and the growth of immorality, drunkenness, and every kind of vice, could not be wondered at. What were the results ? In the men, loss of physical working power, premature disease, and untimely death. In the women, loss of moral and social character; of the children, it had been truly said, they were bred without decency, and brought up without shame. He warned those who lived in towns that more of the rural population would gradually come to live among them, and after what had been said about the state of labourers' cottages, he hoped the accom- modation in towns would be found half as good as that in thecountry. With respect to the conduct of the Government in refer- ence to this question, he thought there was reason to complain, for when, in 1869, he moved for a Royal Com- mission, the Government objected, and said they were prepared to deal with the grievance without loss of time, and that a Commission would only tend indefinitely to 28 postpone the question. A promise was tlien made that after the Irish Church had been dealt with attention should be given to this question ; yet, although the Irish Church had been disposed of, and the Irish Land Bill also, the subject of Local Taxation had not advanced, and the right hon. gentleman had added injury to injustice. Instead of relieving them from the burdens of which they complained, he had added another rate for the purpose of Education. Besides this, Parliament now meditated dealing with the turnpikes, imposing upon them Electioneering expenses and the erection of military Barracks^ and also making more Sanitary regulations, under which no one could tell what amount would have to be paid. In the Royal Speech at the beginning of last session the House was told that two bills on this subject had been " pre- pared," one for " extending the incidence of taxation, another for " placing large sums locally raised for various purposes on a simple and uniform basis," but neither of them had yet seen the hght ; and although the right hon. gentleman appointed last year a Local Taxation Com- mittee, " limited," the vital question at issue was not touched. The only investigation by that committee was whether the payment of the rates should be divided between owners and occupiers, and as the same charges were to be borne by the same parties, that was only a shuffling of the same cards. That committee did not advance the consideration of the question at all, and the proposal contained in the report (which was only carried by the casting vote of the right hon. gentleman, as chair- man) was plausible, but insidious, for he sought to throw a bone of contention among the owners and occupiers, whom he knew to be united on this question, and, when united, strong. He tried to set set them by the ears ; he adopted the motto of Divide et Impera. The committee, however, reported that other considerations besides those submitted to them should be previously taketi into account. The only remedy proposed was a readjustment of burdens > » 21) between the same interested parties. Agriculturists might not be very intelligent, but they could not sup- pose that such a proposition would do them the least good, for it was, as the hon. member for Norfolk said, putting upon the same donkey the like burden, only dividing it into parts, and trying to persuade that sapient animal that he experienced some relief. When the question was before the House on a former occasion the right hon. gentleman said : '' Partly on account of convenience, partly on account of tradition, real property bore the main part of Local Taxation, while per- sonalty bore the main part of Imperial Taxation." The only two principles involved seemed to be, convenience, and tradition. The sole merit was the fatal facility and convenience of collection ; nothing was said of justice, the whole question was expediency. But he would ask whether antiquity saved the Irish Church (which was of the same age as the law of Elizabeth), or did it avail in the case of church rates, the oldest of all rates? He protested against the statement that the balance was equally adjusted between the taxes paid by personal property and the rates paid by real property; for, although the latter paid neither legacy nor probate duty, and only a mild succession duty, yet the former had shufHed out of the land tax, and statistics showed that real property, even now paid within 1 per cent, of imperial taxation as much as real property, and, when local burdens were added, it would be found that houses and land were paying at least 8 per cent, in excess of any other description of property. But he would recommend any member who took an interest in this subject to study a paper recently read before the Statistical Society by that eminent statistician and most lucid writer, Mr. Dudley Baxter. All he asked for was an investigation, and if an impartial one were granted, and it was shown that real property did not pay its fair quota, the owners were prepared to do so. If, however, 30 they were proved to be paying more than their share, they asked for redress. In conclusion, he ventured to think that every thoughtful, sensible man, would admit that the present system of Local Taxation is unsound— that it is wholly opposed to every principle of justice, common sense, and political economy ; that it is unjust in principle, impolitic in practice. He asked no favour, claimed no privilege. He pleaded for equity and equality. He protested against a vicious and indefensible system. This is not a party question, nor a question between town and country — ^both are equally interested, both realise the truth of those memorable words of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in 1853, " The exemption of one man, of one class, or of one pro- perty, is the undue taxation of another." He contended that income, from whatever source, ought to be the test and measm-e of ability, and ought to form the basis of compul- sory contributions towards all National objects. Parlia- ment, for imperial purposes, recognises the liability of all to contribute, according to means and ability, in the inci- dence of income tax. He contended that the same principle of universal liability ought to be made compulsory for all National obligations and Christian duties. What have been the great principles which have guided our legisla- tion for the last fifty years? You have removed all inequalities and anomalies ; you have abolished all privi- leges and prescriptions; justice and equality have been your guiding principles. To your recognition and appre- ciation of those principles, he now earnestly and anxiously appealed, and he asked the House of Commons to extend those principles of equity and justice impartially to all classes, all interests, and every description of property, and not only to widen the present basis, and enlarge the present area of assessment for National purposes, but radically to reform, revise, and readjust, on more just and equitable principles, the whole system of our Local Taxation. ^: /'.<,:: #"^; '*■«»- t: %%, :^W^^'- ^^^ \c: ■.i--^ fj^. ^^^9»%>^ •^':^