UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Class Book Volume 
 
 Ja 09-20M 
 
i- 
 
 * ' 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 h} 
 
 - ? 
 
 L ;.^.- 
 
 4 . 
 
 ■ * 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 .Q;'. ■ 
 
 
 -- ,-r*,-w 
 
 ^ '■ 
 
 • *i> 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 V’ 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ( 
 
 *1 
 
 I’ 
 
•J 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/landtaxitsoriginOOunse 
 
THE LAND TAX, 
 
 ITS ORIGIN, PROGRESS, 
 
 AND 
 
 INEQUALITY, 
 
 STATED IN 
 
 \ 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 tfie of lE^ftierittcr, 
 
 WITH A VIEW TO ITS 
 
 EQUALIZATION. 
 
 A CITIZEN OF WESTMINSTER 
 
 PRICE ONE SHILLING. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 RICHARD DANIEL, 2, KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN. 
 
 1837. 
 
j‘ ;^.- 
 
 1 1 ^' 
 
 % 3 <c,% 'I 
 
 ■% ■ V 
 
 
 -^r\ 
 
 i, :% 
 
 ‘J- if,- 
 
 
 
 WfLLTAM HRI^RY COX, “ 
 
 i' A J:',."? tr 
 
 •^’ tiliKAT QOICKN STURKT, I.INCOI.n’s INN RU’r,!)?. 
 
TO THE 
 
 9 
 
 i RIGHT HONOURABLE T. SPRING RICE, 
 
 Chancellor of His Majesty's Exchequer. 
 
 Sill, 
 
 The position which you occupy, as the Finance 
 Minister of Great Britain, is, I trust, sufficient justifi- 
 cation, without further apology, for my addressing to 
 you the following few pages upon the impolicy and 
 injustice of the present mode of levying the Land 
 Tax ; even were it not, I know no one member of the 
 Government to whom, in stating a serious grievance 
 ^of long standing, I ought so readily to prefer my 
 complaint, as to a minister of the crown, in whose 
 ^peculiar province I apprehend the remedy lies. 
 
 I The motive which induced me to throw together 
 .dlastily these few observations will be sufficiently 
 ^obvious, when it is considered that the locality in 
 p which I reside, is suffering under a practical illustration 
 ^ of the injustice of which I complain ; and the object 
 ^ I have in printing them is simply to lay the facts of 
 ^ the case, in a plain way, before you and the public, in 
 the hopes that the Government will give us redress ; 
 and failing that, that the public spirit of the parties 
 aggrieved may be aroused and create sufficient pres- 
 
4 
 
 sure from without,” to make the matter a standing 
 question in Parliament till justice is attained. 
 
 The I^and Tax, as at present levied, has from 
 almost its origin in its present form, on account of 
 its inequality^ been a source of frequent complaint : 
 and it is rather singular, that though these com- 
 plaints have been uttered from time to time, yet 
 nothing worthy the name of an attempt has been 
 hitherto done towards producing an equalization. At 
 the time of its origin, and for many years afterwards, it 
 formed a principal branch of the revenue, but in the 
 amazing and leviathan strides which our national in- 
 come and expenditure have made of late years, it has 
 been almost lost sight of, and this may account in 
 some degree for its inequality remaining so long un- 
 disturbed; but now, however, a spirit of inquiry and 
 reform has arisen, it has been judiciously directed so 
 as to produce important modifications in many of the 
 institutions of our ancestors, institutions excellent 
 for the days in which they were formed, but no longer 
 suited to the times in which we live. Not the least im- 
 portant of changes have been those effected in our 
 fiscal regulations, the greater number of which are 
 admitted on all hands, I believe, to be decided im- 
 provements ; therefore, we may confidently hope that 
 an avowed injustice, like the Land Tax assessment, is 
 doomed soon to participate in this spirit of regene- 
 ration. 
 
 Before I proceed to point out some glaring instances 
 of the grievousness of the inequality of the Land Tax, 
 it may not be amiss to give you a slight sketch of its 
 origin and history as near as may be. Sir John Sinclair, 
 in his book on revenue, has taken some pains on this 
 subject, and his observations contain nearly all that 
 
can be said of this tax up to his time, I will therefore, 
 take an extract or two, to show its origin and progress : 
 
 “ The origin of Land Taxes in this country,” says Sir John, 
 “ may be traced to the duty called escutage or scutage * which re- 
 sulted from the feudal system. At first, it was levied on the pro- 
 prietors of land by the royal authority ; but in consecpience of 
 this right being abused, it was declared by Magna Cliarta, and 
 repeatedly confirmed by Acts of Parliament, that no scutage 
 should be imposed without the consent of the great men in Par- 
 liament assembled. This tax was sometimes exacted under the 
 name of Hydage or carncage. 
 
 “ But taxes on land came at last to be included under the 
 general name of subsidies, and of monthly assessments. 
 
 “ A subsidy was properly neither a tax upon personal or landed 
 property, but upon Income. Every description of persons, in 
 proportion to their reputed estates, paid after the nominal rate of 
 4^. in the pound for lands, and 2<y. 6Vi. for goods, whilst aliens 
 paid in a double proportion. 
 
 “ This tax was originally introduced in the reign of Richard 
 II., and was calculated at so low a valuation that any one lay 
 subsidy at the above rates did not exceed <P70,000, which in the 
 shape of a modern Land Tax would now produce cPi^,000,000. 
 But it is to be remarked that the estates of the clergy were not 
 included in this sum; for their subsidies (until the 15 of Charles 
 II.) were granted, not by Parliament, but by their own convoca- 
 tion ; and a subsidy from the church at the rate of 4^. in the 
 pound produced about dC20,000. 
 
 “ The last tax by this mode of subsidy was levied in 1670, 
 since which period it has been laid aside, and what is now called 
 the Land Tax, though it also imposed a burden on personal pro- 
 perty was established in its room. 
 
 “ The Long Parliament resolved in order to provide for the 
 better subsistence of their forces, to levy assessments on the per- 
 
 * The word Escutage ov Scutage is derived from a Saxon word signifying 
 shield-money. Every tenant of a knight’s fee was bound to attend the 
 king in his wars for a period of forty days in a year ; these services vrere 
 dispensed with upon payment of a sum of money which was called scutage, 
 or shield-money 
 
6 
 
 sonal and landed property of the people. lliese assessments 
 varied according to the exigencies of the times, from <£^35,000 to 
 <^120,000 a month. They were found so productive and so 
 much superior in every respect, to the ancient mode of subsidies, 
 that under the denomination of Land Tax they have since formed 
 a very considerable branch of the public revenue. 
 
 In 1660, an assessment of <£^70,000 per month was imposed, 
 and the proportions fixed. 
 
 “ The circumstances of the country at the accession of William 
 III. were such, that no tax could be depended upon, as suffi- 
 ciently productive, that was not imposed upon land, in the pro- 
 duce of which the wealth and income of England, at that time, 
 principally consisted. That it might be rendered as efficient as 
 ])ossible, new assessments were taken of the property and income 
 that each individual possessed. But the rate was far from being 
 equal. Those who were attached to the principles established at 
 the Hevolution, were forward to shew their zeal in favour of the 
 new Government, and gave in a fair statement of their'real situa- 
 tion ; whilst the secret and avowed friends of the exiled family, 
 the sordid and avaricious, gave in a very different account, esti- 
 mating their property at the lowest rate at which it could be cal- 
 culated. Hence the assessments since known under the name of 
 the Land Tax were not in any respect so productive as they 
 might have been.” 
 
 In 1692, by the 4th of William and Mary, a valua- 
 tion was made which constitutes the basis of the 
 present Land Tax. A supply of £500,000 was upon 
 that valuation supposed to amount to 1^. in the pound, 
 or for the annual supply of two millions would be 4<s. 
 in the pound. It is very doubtful if this valuation 
 was a correct one, and extremely unlikely that the 
 land-owners were called upon to pay anything like 4is. 
 This valuation, however, exists at the present day. 
 The inequality thus produced, was very soon felt to 
 he a grievance and an injustice; and accordingly in 
 1732, we find Sir 11. Walpole in a debate in Parliament 
 thus designating it. “The Land Tax,” he says, “is the 
 
7 
 
 most unequal^ the most grievous, the most oppressive, 
 tax that was ever raised in this country.” He further 
 says “ there are some landed gentlemen that pay a 
 Land Tax equal to the full value of their estates, 
 while others equal to a third part of the real value, 
 and generally those gentlemen who suffer most by 
 this partiality, are those whose ancestors were a sort 
 of knight-errants for the Revolution.” 
 
 Mr. Pultney, his opponent in the same debate, con- 
 tending against the imposition of a salt tax in lieu of 
 part of the Land Tax, says “ It is well known that 
 there are many landed gentlemen whose estates are 
 valued so low that they do not pay a groat of the 
 shilling in the pound Land Tax ; it is certain that 
 there are few or no landed gentlemen who pay the 
 whole shilling ; there is not, I believe, one estate in 
 England that is rated to the full value with respect to 
 the Land Tax.”* 
 
 Fourteen years after, in 1746, an anonymous writer, 
 who seems to have taken some pains to point out its 
 inequality, thus writes, in a pamphlet printed by one 
 John Hinton : 
 
 The Land Tax, which though it pretends to raise one-fifth of 
 the yearly income of the country, does not in fact raise a tenth, 
 perhaps not a twelfth ; and that with such manifest irregularity^ 
 partiality^ and injustice^ as no court or assembly of men, was 
 the fact brought fairly before them, could or ought to coun- 
 tenance.^"' 
 
 As to the manner of levying this tax, the same 
 writer observes — 
 
 “ Instead of any enquiry directed to be made what may be the 
 
 • The Land Tax was at this period 2^. in the pound, which was 
 considered a heavy tax, and so much so that the prospect of any increase 
 was regarded with great alarm by the landed gentry. 
 
8 
 
 value of the lands in each county, out of which this 4^. in the 
 pound shall be raised, a certain sum is fixed upon each county, 
 which in some counties may, upon an average, amount to 2^., in 
 others to 1^., and in some scarce to 6d. in the pound, but does 
 not in any county of England amount to Ss., and I verily believe, 
 that at this day (1746) there is not a personal estate that pays 1^. 
 in the pound. 
 
 “ I have taken much pains to estimate how much, upon an 
 average, each county pays. London, Westminster, and Mid- 
 dlesex pay the highest ; but none of these pay Ss. in the pound, 
 nor is there any county that pays ^s., except perhaps, Surrey, 
 Sussex, Hertford, Bucks, Oxon, Warwick, they may pay about 
 ; Kent, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hants, and the midland counties, 
 pay about H. 6c?., 1^. lOd. and 1^. 11c? The great counties of 
 York, Somerset, and Devon, about 6d. ; Cornwall less ; and in 
 Wales and Lancashire, and the northern counties, they pay 
 under 1^. 
 
 Scotland pays a firtieth part of the Land Tax of England, 
 though, upon reasonable computation, the value of her lands is one- 
 sixth of that of England. 
 
 “ Though I have mentioned London, Westminster, and Mid- 
 dlesex as paying 3^., I have good reason to believe that 2^. 6d. is 
 the most they pay. But what is more extraordinary is, that some 
 parishes in each district pay full 4^., whilst others scarcely pay a 
 third part : nay, even in the same parish, some pay half as much 
 more as others. 
 
 The legal profession, being allowed to assess themselves, took 
 good care, he says, to lay the burden on lightly : for example : — 
 
 Serjeant s Inn, Annual Value, <£*900 J^and Tax, £ 31 
 
 “ The Temple „ 7,000 „ 400 
 
 (being under 1^. in the pound) ; whilst their neighbours in 
 St. Dunstan’s were paying 4^. in the pound.” 
 
 It would seem from this and other writers upon 
 the subject of his time, that an opinion prevailed that 
 the remote districts of England were never, on account 
 of their poverty, assessed to the Land Tax in the same 
 proportion as the metropolis and the counties imme- 
 
9 
 
 diately surrounding it ; but this writer shows that some 
 of the poorer counties, in Wales for instance, pay as 
 much as some of the richer. 
 
 Thus Radnor, pays more than Carmarthen, and 
 almost as much as Pembrokeshire. 
 
 In 1751, again, the inequality of the Land Tax is a 
 source of complaint. Mr. W. Thornton, in a debate 
 upon the question whether 3s. in the pound Land Tax 
 should be granted, thus denounces its inequality. “ The 
 Land Tax is so very partial a tax, that any other 
 method of raising money is preferable to it ; and the 
 present manner of assessing it is unequal and imjustl' 
 
 Again, in 1767, Mr. C. Townsend, speaking of 4.9. in 
 the pound for that year, and its continuance at that 
 rate in a time of peace, says, “ that this new imposi- 
 tion of a tax so unequally laid, doubled the injustice, 
 by oppressing a set of men whose patient acquiescence 
 in the time of necessity merited the earliest relief from 
 the state.” * 
 
 Ten years after, Mr. Whitbread complains of the 
 injustice in his own case, which I shall allude to more 
 particularly afterwards. 
 
 The Land Tax continued to be voted annually up 
 to 1798, when Mr. Pitt introduced his plan for re- 
 demption, and constituted the tax a permanent one. 
 When voted annually it varied from 1.9. to 4.9. in the 
 pound, and was, by the old Land Tax Act of William 
 and IMary, to be fairly and equally assessed: how far 
 this has been complied with, what I have detailed will 
 sufficiently show. 
 
 Mr. Pitt’s proposition for redeeming the Land Tax 
 
 * The proposition of a Land Tax at 3s. in the pound was carried in oppo- 
 sition to the Ministry, being it is said, the tirst money bill in which any 
 minister had been disappointed since the Revolution. 
 
10 
 
 was objected to because it was supposed that he sought 
 to perpetuate the inequality of its assessment, and he 
 acknowledged that it was a defect in the original plan 
 not to fix a periodical revision of the assessment, but 
 stated most distinctly that his measure would not pre- 
 clude a new repartition. 
 
 During the debate on the Land Tax Bill, 1798, in 
 answering the objection that the present repartition 
 was unequal, and therefore ought not to be perpe- 
 tuated, he said, ‘‘ That since the Bevolution no pro- 
 position had been made for an equalization of the 
 Land Tax, although voted annually ; I am ready to 
 admit that I consider it to have been an original 
 defect of the present plan of repartition that no pe^ 
 riodical revision was fixed. I think that it would have 
 been wise to have made such a provision, and that it 
 would have been happy for the country if it had been 
 done. Two important guards would be necessary to 
 prevent the inequality being too great, and at the 
 same time not to discourage improvement. The prin- 
 ciple, however, not having been at first recognized, 
 and property having been since transferred without 
 any attention to it, would it be now wise, just, or 
 popular, to make a new valuation ? I think after so 
 many years’ experience has shown that no inclination to 
 establish a different repartition prevailed, we ought not 
 to allow much weight to the objection that to perpe- 
 tuate the tax would be to perpetuate the inequality.” 
 
 Again, he asks, does this measure give any new 
 facility for a general Land Tax ? No ; “ this measure” 
 he says, “ leaves the question of a more equal repartition 
 where it found it. The only thing necessary to be 
 provided, as expressly as any legislative provision can 
 guard, is that if ever a new Land Tax is imposed, it 
 
II 
 
 shall not be imposed upon those who have redeemed, 
 in any different proportion, from that on those who 
 have not redeemed.” 
 
 Mr. Pitt’s observations, it will be perceived, were 
 directed chiefly to the objections to his measure, 
 founded upon an apprehended perpetuation of the 
 then inequality, and he seems to say that no such 
 thing was intended, on the contrary, if a re-valuation 
 were called for, he should not be averse to it ; but that 
 his present measure for redemption would by no 
 means preclude it. 
 
 It is singular that Mr. Pitt himself, perceiving the 
 original defect, did not provide against its continuance 
 in his bill ; his neglect, for such it must be deemed, 
 upon this head, is perhaps more attributable to the 
 anticipation he had of the success of his redemption 
 scheme, than to the reasons he gave to his opponents 
 in Parliament ; he evidently thought that the whole 
 tax would be bought up in a few years, which was 
 no improbable conjecture, when the low state of the 
 funds was considered. 
 
 Since the redemption scheme of Mr. Pitt, which 
 proved a complete failure, the Land Tax has scarcely 
 been brought before Parliament, except on one occa- 
 sion, and that was in the year 1830, when Sir John 
 Cam Hobhouse, then member for Westminster, pre- 
 sented a petition from the parish of St. Paul, Covent 
 Garden, and stated some of the inequalities which 
 have been before alluded to. 
 
 Petitions have been presented to Parliament from 
 time to time by^parties much aggrieved, praying for 
 an equalization, which, however, has never yet been 
 taken seriously into consideration, though I am of 
 opinion, it requires nothing but perseverance to bring 
 such a desideratum about. 
 
12 
 
 Lord Wynford, with what view I know not, during 
 the last Session of Parliament procured a return, to 
 the House of Lords, of the amount of Land Tax 
 assessed in every place where a local board of commis- 
 sioners sits ; this, I believe, is the only document of 
 the kind which exhibits a comprehensive view of the 
 inequalities of these assessments ; this return with 
 another (on the Poor Rates, 1830), will enable me to 
 place before you a detailed view of them, perhaps 
 more minutely than has hitherto appeared. 
 
 The Tables which are annexed will show, though 
 somewhat imperfectly, to what an extent the “ original 
 defect” of Mr. Pitt has grown : the first Table exhibits 
 the counties, with the amount of Land Tax assessed 
 upon each, as given in Lord Wynford’s return, the 
 amount redeemed from the same return, and the 
 amount of real proper tij assessed to the Property Tax 
 in 1815, as a standard of comparison. The second 
 Table is a list of towns, cities, and places, with the 
 Land Tax assessed upon them and redeemed, and 
 again the property assessed to the Property Tax in 
 1815 as before. 
 
 The simple return of my Lord Wynford would not 
 have shown out the inequality, without some esti- 
 mate of the annual value of the property on which it 
 is levied. The Land Tax Commissioners have not 
 been called upon to furnish any such estimate, and I 
 doubt if they could do so satisfactorily in many in- 
 stances ; therefore I had no alternative but to take this 
 Property Tax Return as a standard of comparison of 
 the relative value of the property on which the Land 
 Tax is assessed ; it is, I believe, the only parliamentary 
 document calculated to answer this purpose. 
 
 The relative value of property may be slightly 
 
13 
 
 changed in some instances since 1815, and the districts 
 of the Land Tax assessors, and tliose of assessors 
 of real property in 1815, may not exactly correspond 
 in some cases, but I believe generally any error, arising 
 from either of these circumstances, will not tend to 
 reduce the inequality. 
 
 Perhaps the best comment upon these Tables would 
 be a perusal of them from beginning to end ; for being 
 placed in the order of the relative value of the real 
 property in the districts, for which the respective 
 amounts of Land Tax are assessed, its inequality will 
 be most apparent in that order. 
 
 Take an instance, beginning with the counties. 
 The county of Middlesex, the real property in which is 
 stated at £5,595,537 per ann., pays £236,246, or about 
 10^. in the pound ; while in Lancaster it is £3,087,774, 
 and the Land Tax only £19,409, or about l^d, in the 
 pound. The great county of York pays about 4^, 
 while Bedford is near Is. Sd. in the pound. The little 
 county of Rutland pays about 10^/., Buckingham, 
 1^. 5^d., while Cumberland is let off ^ 0 Yl\d. Stafford 
 pays 5\d., and Hampshire, about the same value, is 
 mulcted in lie?., or just double. The large county of 
 Northumberland is let off for 2^d., and Sussex is 
 charged H. ^\d., Hereford, 1,?. M., W estmoreland, 9>\d, 
 The average for England, I make about ^d, in the 
 pound. The highest county is Bedford, 1,?. Sd., the 
 lowest, Cumberland, l\d. In Wales, similar discre- 
 pancies are observable, which a reference to the Table 
 plainly shows. But the inequalities among the coun- 
 ties bear no proportion to those among the Towns. In 
 counties, they are set off in some degree against one 
 another, but in the separate districts they stand out in 
 all their enormity. Take for instance, the small parish 
 
14 
 
 of 8t. Paul, Covent Garden, paying 2s. ^d. in the 
 pound, and Marylebone only a farthing. W cstininster, 
 in the aggregate, at about \0d. The City of London 
 near Is. 6d. ; the town of Liverpool does not pay one- 
 tenth of a penny. Manchster contributes not ex- 
 ceeding 2d. City of Norwich the enormous rate 
 of 2s. Id. Brighton not more than \^d. Exeter city, 
 1^. 5%d. Leicester, 2%d. Cambridge, 1^. 2d. Lan- 
 caster, \d. Oxford, 2s. Sd. Berwick, ^d. Gloucester, 
 1^. ^d. Dover, 'Id. Bury, 3^. 0\d. Harwich, ^7d. 
 Winchester, 1,?. 5d. Southampton, ^\d. Kidder- 
 minster, Is. 2^d. Tewksbury, ^d. Winchelsea, Ss. \d. 
 Bath, l^d. Leeds, 2\d. Southwark, l\d. There are 
 doubtless great inequalities in the City of London, 
 among the different parishes, but I have not correct 
 data to do more than give the aggregate. 
 
 Great as these inequalities are, I have reason to 
 suppose they are greater than they appear, owing to 
 the irregular mode of assessing in the different parishes, 
 in some of which the property is valued up to the full 
 annual value, and in others only at two-thirds, and 
 some even at half ; therefore the Land Tax nominally 
 at 2s. ^d. in a parish where the assessment is only half 
 the annual value, will be virtually only half what 
 another parish pays, where the assessment is up to the 
 full annual value. This will cause a still further dis- 
 crepancy. Several cases of this description have come 
 within my own knowledge, and from inquiries I have 
 made, I have reason to believe they are far from being 
 uncommon. 
 
 These examples, I trust, exhibit sufficiently the 
 irregularity and consequent injustice of this 
 tax, as does the language of those persons I have 
 quoted prove its previous inequality, which from the 
 
15 
 
 increased value of property in particular districts is in 
 no way diminished at the present day. It must be 
 borne in mind that in calculations, such as the Tables 
 I have annexed, a very minute accuracy cannot be 
 expected, but from the care I have bestowed upon 
 them, I am satisfied they are sufficiently accurate to 
 establish the general inequality of the tax to a great 
 extent ; and this being established beyond a doubt, 
 the question of the policy of its continuance in its 
 present unequal state naturally presents itself to the 
 mind. 
 
 The unequal pressure of a tax has been admitted a 
 sufficient reason for its repeal, even at a sacrifice of 
 revenue, and the justice of the principle acted upon in* 
 such a case is, I think, beyond all dispute. Why then 
 shall this tax not be subject to the same law, and 
 the inequality of its pressure be deemed sufficient 
 grounds for at least its equalization ? I trust such will 
 be the case when once fairly brought before Parlia- 
 ment by our representatives. 
 
 “ The subjects of every state,” says Adam Smith, 
 ‘‘ should contribute towards the support of the govern- 
 ment, as nearly as possible in proportion to their 
 respective abilities. The Land Tax of England is a 
 violation of this just 'principle. In the Venetian terri- 
 tory, all the lands leased to the farmers are taxed at a 
 tenth of the rent. The leases are recorded in a public 
 register ; the proprietor cultivating his own soil has 
 an allowance of one-fifth, or pays 8 per cent, instead 
 of 10 per cent. A Land Tax of this kind is certainly 
 more equal than our Land Tax.” 
 
 In Prussia, the Land Tax is said to be assessed ac- 
 cording to the actual value of the land and adjusted 
 periodically. 
 
16 
 
 111 England, the country was divided into districts, 
 and the quotas for these districts were fixed in 1692, 
 so as to make up a sum of about two millions, and 
 these quotas remain the same to this day ; originally, 
 we are told, this was intended only as a temporary re- 
 gulation, but it has continued, as respects each district, 
 uniformly the same ; the relative value of the districts 
 having changed, the tax has continued the same, and 
 therefore in a district which has risen in wealth, it has 
 become a mere bagatelle, and in a less fortunate one it 
 is a very heavy tax. 
 
 The impolicy and injustice of a fixed tax on land, 
 without any adjusting principle, is strikingly illus- 
 trated by Saye, in his Political Economy, in reference 
 to Tuscany : 
 
 “ Shortly after the Revolution, there was a valuation of all the 
 land in England ; and upon that valuation the Land Tax still 
 continues to be levied to this day ; so that the tax of 4^. in the 
 pound upon the rent of land is a fifth part of its rent at that time, 
 and not of the actual rent of the present day.” 
 
 “ It would be easy to point out cases in which the tax, becoming 
 by its fixation disproportionate to the means of the tax-payers, 
 and the condition of the soil, might be productive of as much mis- 
 chief as it has done good in other instances, where it would operate to 
 throw out of cultivation a class of land, that, by one cause or other, 
 had become incompetent to pay the same ratio of taxation. We have 
 had an example of this in Tuscany; there, a Census, or Terrier, was 
 made in 1496, wherein the plains and vallies were rated very low 
 on account of the frequent floods and inundations which prevented 
 any regular and profitable cultivation ; while the uplands, that 
 were then the only cultivated spots, were rated very high. Since 
 then, the torrents and inundations have been confined by drainage 
 and embankments, and the plains reduced to fertility ; their pro- 
 duce, becoming comparatively exempt from tax, came to market 
 cheaper than that of the uplands, which, consequently, were 
 unable to maintain the competition under the pressure of the dis- 
 proportionate taxation, and have gradually been abandoned and 
 deserted, whereas had the tax been adjusted to the change of cir- 
 cumstances, both might have been cultivated together.” 
 
 The case of Tuscany is that of England, in a degree, 
 the plains in the former represent the once flourishing 
 and important districts of the latter, taxed far beyond 
 
17 
 
 their proportion ; while the uplands have their parallel 
 in the recently improved and rapidly risen wealthy 
 districts of our manufacturing and trading empire, 
 such as I^iverpool, Manchester, Marylebone, Leeds, 
 Newcastle, &c., which places continue to pay as they 
 did when they were comparatively unknown. 
 
 Luckily” says Adam Smith, “the value of pro- 
 perty all over England has increased considerably in- 
 stead of having decreased, otherwise the effects of a 
 fixed Land Tax might have been most disastrous.” 
 
 Admitting, then, that it is politic and just to correct 
 this unequal mode of collecting a fixed amount of re- 
 ,venue, and I think few will have the hardihood to 
 dispute it, the question next arises — how shall this 
 desideratum be accomplished ? But the importance 
 and justice of an equalization of this tax has never, I 
 believe, been questioned by any sound politician, 
 though the means by which it could be effected has 
 not been so obvious. 
 
 The inequalities having arisen from two causes, viz. 
 the impolicy of permitting persons to assess them- 
 selves, and the want of some provision for an alteration 
 of the assessments, from time to time, in order to ac- 
 commodate them to the fluctuations to which property 
 is liable, it will be necessary, in any plan for an equali- 
 zation of this tax, to guard as much as possible against 
 the recurrence of similar causes. 
 
 What would be thought at the present day of 
 allowing the inhabitants in any parish, or district, to 
 assess themselves individually for the poor’s or any 
 other rate ? The inequalities of assessment are great, 
 even when intrusted to overseers or local boards, but 
 what would they be if each individual estimated his 
 own property as the basis on which he should be 
 rated ? Why, the result would be, an inequality such 
 as the one complained of in the Land Tax. Again 
 the fluctuations of property, especially in the manu- 
 facturing and trading districts, have been such, 
 even within our own experience, as almost to tax 
 credulity; and have these n relative changes, alto- 
 gether ceased? I think not. They are incidental 
 
18 
 
 to a mercantile and trading community like ours ; 
 even in agricultural districts, great fluctuations have 
 within a few years, owing to increased facilities of 
 communication by steam navigation, taken place. 
 The remote parts of England and some parts of Scot- 
 land have prospered by the cheap means of transmit- 
 ting provisions to the metropolis, and the districts 
 near London have suffered in proportion ; and when 
 the great power of steam shall enable us to traverse 
 ' the country from end to end with the fleetness of the 
 whirlwind, shall we not have similar and more im- 
 portant changes in the relative value of property? 
 All this shows decidedly the necessity of some flexible 
 principle in the mode of levying this tax, to prevent 
 the recurrence of its present inequality and injustice, 
 as well as to correct the collateral effects produced 
 upon the districts thus unfairly dealt with. 
 
 It remains, then, to be seen whether with the im- 
 proved statistical machinery which the Government 
 possesses, and is likely to obtain, some means for a 
 periodical “ repartition ” cannot be devised — some 
 means which shall periodically adjust and distribute 
 the burden with at least more equality than at pre- 
 sent exists. 
 
 The redemption of part of this tax forms a serious 
 obstacle, in the minds of many, to any plan for its 
 equalization ; but this arises, in my opinion, from 
 want of a due consideration of the subject. It is 
 objected that Mr. Pitt’s Act rendered the quotas per- 
 petual, and, to use the words of Sir John Sinclair, 
 ‘‘ that the faith of the public was pledged to admit of 
 no alteration in the rate of assessment. This objection 
 however,” says he “ will not stand the test of strict 
 examination. It is well known that Parliament has 
 never given any real foundation for such an idea ; on 
 the contrary, by frequently varying the amount of 
 Land Tax from 1.9. to 4 .s‘. in the pound, it evidently 
 reserved to itself a power over that important branch 
 of the national revenue and the language of Mr. Pitt, 
 the projector of the redemption scheme, fully bears 
 
19 
 
 this out. Can any thing be clearer than the intent of 
 his words? “ This measure^"" he leaves the 
 
 question of a more equal repartition where it found it I' 
 Surely Mr. Pitt thought there was nothing in his bill 
 to perpetuate this inequality ; indeed, lie even goes 
 further, he regrets its existence, and, but for the pros- 
 pect of its immediate extinction, it is probable, would 
 have made a provision for a more equal distribution 
 of it. But then it is contended, that parties have 
 purchased estates under the impression that no 
 alteration would take place, and that the purchase- 
 money has been in some degree regulated by the 
 smallness of the Land Tax assessed upon these estates, 
 and it is asked, would it not be injustice to call upon 
 them to pay in future an extra rate? Tliis may be 
 very true, but what say those who have all along been 
 paying the burden which these complainants ought to 
 have paid? Have the former not good reason to 
 complain too, that they have been paying for years 
 the Land Tax of the latter and their own too ? For 
 surely the inhabitants of Liverpool or Marylebone, 
 and places similarly circumstanced, cannot call the 
 trifle they contribute towards this tax anything, while 
 their neighbours are paying sixty or seventy times as 
 much to the same fund. In truth, they who are so 
 lightly taxed, ought to be well content they are not 
 called upon to refund what their neighbours have paid 
 on their account. 
 
 A further objection has been stated, namely, that it 
 would be unfair to impose a new tax upon those who 
 have redeemed. So it would, and I should say, it 
 ought not to be done. In fact, the question of an 
 equalization, and the operation of any plan for it, should 
 lie vv^holly between the parties at present paying Land 
 Tax. 
 
 It has been urged too, that in districts where the 
 Land Tax is now heavy, and would be reduced by an 
 equalization, that the parties having redeemed pre- 
 viously, would not be fairly treated, as they might 
 now redeem, like their neighbours, at a reduced rate. 
 
20 
 
 Such an objection seems to have little weight, when the 
 altered state of the public funds is considered ; and it 
 may be truly answered, that they had an equivalent 
 for their money at the time they redeemed, and have 
 enjoyed a political privilege ever since in the shape of 
 a freehold vote. 
 
 Objections to any revaluation are frivolous, when 
 it is considered that before the Land Tax was made 
 a permanent tax, there were two valuations existing. 
 ^Ir. Whitbread, in 1777, thus complains of the me- 
 quality of the mode of assessing and levying the Land 
 Tax ! — I beg of the Committee to take it into their 
 most serious consideration, that since the addition of 
 1^. in the pound was laid upon land, the whole is 
 raised upon some estates according to the old assess- 
 ment, and on some according to the new, by which 
 estates in general are most unfairly and unequally 
 taxed. As an instance,” says Mr. Whitbread, “ I 
 have an estate in Middlesex, worth £180 per annum, 
 for which I pay £l6 Land Tax, and I have another in 
 Eedfordshire, for which I pay £50, and the value of 
 the latter is about the same as the former. 
 
 ‘‘ This difference arises from one estate paying to the 
 rate of the old assessment, and the other according to 
 the new'' 
 
 The equalization, T conceive, should be made upon 
 the land unredeemed only, and this might be easily 
 done with the present machinery ; thus, as the whole 
 quota for a district continues to be assessed, until the 
 whole of the Land Tax in that district is redeemed, 
 it would be an easy task to ascertain the whole Land 
 Tax unredeemed throughout the country ; and an esti- 
 mate of the property on which it is levied being fur- 
 nished by the local authorities, an average might be 
 struck, subject to revision from time to time, as any 
 material change in the relative value of the districts 
 might arise. 
 
 The greatest difficulty that occurs to my mind is 
 the obtaining a fair estimate of the annual value of the 
 property on which the Land Tax is payable. The 
 
21 
 
 parochial assessment is at present taken in many in- 
 stances, and where this is recent, it might do well 
 enough ; but as there are some districts where nothing 
 like a valuation has taken place for a long period of 
 time, and others where it is notoriously under the real 
 annual value, I must confess, this cannot be well ac- 
 complished without a general reassessment of property 
 throughout the country. This difficulty, which, I 
 apprehend, has been experienced by the Poor L^w 
 Commissioners, the powers conferred upon them by 
 the Parochial Assessment Act, passed last session, 
 is however calculated to remove. Might not these 
 powers be beneficially exerted to effect this desirable 
 object ? Would not their valuation for the poor’s rate 
 be a good basis for an equalization of the Land Tax? 
 
 In conclusion, I cannot withhold expressing my 
 surprise, that amidst all the modern improvements 
 which our financial and fiscal system have undergone, 
 this ugly account in the National Ledger should re- 
 main untouched ; and I venture to hope, that your 
 attention being drawn to the subject, even in the im- 
 perfect manner I have done it, may lead to some 
 alteration and, I trust, improvement in the mode 
 of levying this tax, than which none can easily be con- 
 ceived more partial and unjust. 
 
 I have the honour to 
 
 Subscribe myself. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your humble and obedient Servant, 
 
 A Citizen of Westminster. 
 

 COUNTY. 
 
 ENGLAND, 
 
 Aliddlesex 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 York 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Somerset 
 
 Deyon 
 
 Kent 
 
 Surrey 
 
 Essex 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 Gloucester ^ 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 Warwick 
 
 Wilts 
 
 Stafford 
 
 Southampton 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 Chester 
 
 Salop 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Cornwall 
 
 Leicester 
 
 Sussex 
 
 Derby 
 
 Worcester 
 
 Durham 
 
 Oxford 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 Cumberland 
 
 Dorset 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 Berks 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 Hereford 
 
 Hertford 
 
 Bedford 
 
 Huntingdon 
 
 Westmoreland 
 
 Monmouth 
 
 Rutland 
 
 Total 
 
 WALES. 
 
 Glamorgan 
 
 Carmarthen 
 
 Denbigh 
 
 Pembroke 
 
 Montgomery 
 
 Flint 
 
 Brecon ; 
 
 Cardigan 
 
 Carnarvon 
 
 Merioneth 
 
 Radnor 
 
 Anglesea 
 
 Estimate of the 
 annual value of 
 Real Property as 
 assessed 1815 
 
 £. 
 
 5,595,537 
 
 3,087,774 
 
 4,727,984 
 
 2,061,830 
 
 1,900,651 
 
 1,897,515 
 
 1,644,179 
 
 1.579,178 
 
 1,556,836 
 
 1.540.9.52 
 1,463,260 
 1,240,592 
 1,236,727 
 1,155,459 
 1,150,285 
 
 1.130.9.52 
 1,127,404 
 1,083,084 
 1,037,988 
 
 942,162 
 
 916,060 
 
 902,217 
 
 915,348 
 
 887,659 
 
 799,605 
 
 791,3.59 
 
 713,147 
 
 737,230 
 
 705,446 
 
 698,396 
 
 6.55,221 
 
 652,082 
 
 644,130 
 
 604,614 
 
 571,107 
 
 343,683 
 
 320,188 
 
 298,199 
 
 295,097 
 
 133,487 
 
 49,744,619 
 
 Total 2,135,284 
 
 3.34,192 
 
 277,4.55 
 
 225,464 
 
 219.589 
 207,286 
 153,930 
 146,539 
 141,889 
 125,198 
 111,436 
 
 99,717 
 
 92.589 
 
 Total amour 
 of Land Ta> 
 assessed 18di 
 
 It Total 
 
 c Amount 
 ). Redeemed. 
 
 Rate in 
 the Pound 
 about. 
 
 £. 
 
 £. 
 
 .s, 
 
 . d. 
 
 236,246 
 
 83,375 
 
 0 
 
 104 
 
 19,409 
 
 7,916 
 
 0 
 
 U 
 
 88,403 
 
 44,382 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 
 70,530 
 
 18,834 
 
 0 
 
 8 
 
 69,897 
 
 25,9,54 
 
 0 
 
 8| 
 
 17,158 
 
 2d, 021 
 
 0 
 
 10 
 
 80,487 
 
 42,631 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 65,104 
 
 27,780 
 
 0 
 
 104 
 
 88,639 
 
 46,397 
 
 1 
 
 
 81,818 
 
 19,223 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 46,658 
 
 19,709 
 
 0 
 
 
 14,274 
 
 5,751 
 
 0 
 
 2| 
 
 39,208 
 
 15,286 
 
 0 
 
 
 50,985 
 
 20,206 
 
 0 
 
 104 
 
 26.139 
 
 9,864 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 
 52,599 
 
 25,442 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 72,498 
 
 22,605 
 
 1 
 
 
 27,475 
 
 7,617 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 28,681 
 
 7,744 
 
 0 
 
 
 47,157 
 
 14,815 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 30,473 
 
 12,144 
 
 0 
 
 8 
 
 34,237 
 
 12,763 
 
 0 
 
 9 
 
 68,446 
 
 27,251 
 
 1 
 
 34 
 
 23,402 
 
 6,983 
 
 0 
 
 
 32,523 
 
 12,732 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 9,626 
 
 5,336 
 
 0 
 
 2] 
 
 38,011 
 
 14,448 
 
 1 
 
 0| 
 
 26,728 
 
 9,201 
 
 0 
 
 8| 
 
 3,727 
 
 2,096 
 
 0 
 
 1-i 
 
 32,021 
 
 10,520 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 32,470 
 
 9,442 
 
 0 
 
 III 
 
 40,194 
 
 18,863 
 
 1 
 
 2| 
 
 46,815 
 
 21,493 
 
 1 
 
 
 20,102 
 
 7.582 
 
 0 
 
 8 
 
 41,782 
 
 20,807 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 28,430 
 
 9,809 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 15,277 
 
 4,261 
 
 0 
 
 lU 
 
 3,030 
 
 1,779 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 9,609 
 
 3,022 
 
 0 
 
 7| 
 
 5,473 
 
 1,276 
 
 0 : 
 
 10 
 
 312,163 
 
 706,344 
 
 0 
 
 9 
 
 7,670 
 
 4,147 
 
 6,722 
 
 2,902 
 
 5,804 
 
 2,247 
 
 2,9.53 
 
 1,278 
 
 2,272 
 
 2,423 
 
 2,652 
 
 1,536 
 
 42,606 
 
 1,596 
 1,185 
 1,663 
 1 ,266 
 1,087 
 743 
 941 
 447 
 606 
 484 
 832 
 550 
 
 11.400 
 
 51 
 
 H 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 5 
 
 2 | 
 
 U 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 6 
 4 
 
 0 5 
 
TABLE II. — A List of Cities, Towns, Districts, and Parishes, arranged as the 
 preceding Table, to show the inequality of the present Land Tax Assessments. 
 
 City, Town, or District. 
 
 Middlesex, exclusive of London ? 
 
 and Westminster ^ 
 
 Westminster 
 
 London 
 
 Idverpool 
 
 Marylebone 
 
 Hemlingford Hundred, including ? 
 
 Birmingham ^ 
 
 St. George, Hanover Square . . . . 
 
 Manchester 
 
 Knightlow, Hundred, Warwicksh. 
 
 St. James, Westminster 
 
 Southwark 
 
 Bristol 
 
 St. Martin, Westminster 
 
 Leeds 
 
 Newcastle, Tyne 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Plymouth, Borough 
 
 Hull 
 
 Bath 
 
 Norwich 
 
 Brighton 
 
 York, Ainstey 
 
 Chester, City 
 
 Ripon, Borough and Liberty . . . , 
 
 Exeter, City 
 
 Leicester, Borough 
 
 Cheltenham 
 
 Lincoln, City 
 
 York, City 
 
 St. Paul, Covent Garden 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 Colchester 
 
 Ipswich 
 
 Southampton 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 Beverly 
 
 Wigan 
 
 St. Alban’s 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 Boston 
 
 Oxford 
 
 Berwick 
 
 Bridgewater 
 
 Doncaster 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 Newark 
 
 Kidderminster 
 
 Lime, Borough 
 
 Yarmouth 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Windsor 
 
 Dudley 
 
 Litchfield 
 
 Hereford, City 
 
 Sarum, City 
 
 Lydd, Kent 
 
 Tewksbury 
 
 Estimate of the .j 
 annual value of 
 Real Property as , 
 assessed 1815. ‘ 
 
 fotal amount 
 of Land Tax 
 issessed 1835. 
 
 Total 
 
 Amount 
 
 Redeemed. 
 
 Rate in 
 the Pound 
 about. 
 
 £. 
 
 £. 
 
 £. 
 
 S. 
 
 d. 
 
 2,788,801 
 
 95,584 
 
 33,849 
 
 0 
 
 
 1,243,900 
 
 53,418 
 
 12,160 
 
 0 
 
 10-i 
 
 1,062,736 
 
 87,244 
 
 37,366 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 589,140 
 
 168 
 
 69 
 
 0 
 
 Wr 
 
 509,244 
 
 564 
 
 80 
 
 0 
 
 0^ 
 
 500,000 
 
 10,182 
 
 4,417 
 
 0 
 
 bk 
 
 466,799 
 
 11,802 
 
 1,276 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 357,682 
 
 2,912 
 
 1,192 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 290,000 
 
 10,779 
 
 2,874 
 
 0 
 
 9 
 
 275,479 
 
 11.173 
 
 4,265 
 
 0 
 
 10 
 
 227,407 
 
 11.346 
 
 2,657 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 209,488 
 
 6,326 
 
 1,172 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 155,422 
 
 7,285 
 
 1,762 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 103,435 
 
 1,058 
 
 642 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 91,640 
 
 1,860 
 
 440 
 
 0 
 
 2| 
 
 80,504 
 
 2,376 
 
 828 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 78,937 
 
 848 
 
 456 
 
 0 
 
 
 77,903 
 
 1,513 
 
 1,076 
 
 0 
 
 
 73,507 
 
 443 
 
 57 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 
 72,481 
 
 7,636 
 
 792 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 71,515 
 
 558 
 
 237 
 
 0 
 
 
 70,099 
 
 2,104 
 
 991 
 
 0 
 
 7 
 
 55,966 
 
 1.426 
 
 280 
 
 0 
 
 
 54,744 
 
 764 
 
 430 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 
 54,326 
 
 4,044 
 
 1,549 
 
 1 
 
 5f 
 
 53,937 
 
 586 
 
 268 
 
 0 
 
 2^ 
 
 45,075 
 
 1,381 
 
 619 
 
 0 
 
 7 
 
 44,396 
 
 1,562 
 
 280 
 
 0 
 
 8f 
 
 43,499 
 
 2,218 
 
 592 
 
 1 
 
 Oh 
 
 42,488 
 
 4,840 
 
 138 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 42,336 
 
 1,498 
 
 831 
 
 0 
 
 8h 
 
 42,137 
 
 2,698 
 
 1,097 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 40,983 
 
 1,945 
 
 555 
 
 0 
 
 14 
 
 39,359 
 
 562 
 
 342 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 
 34,117 
 
 76 
 
 52 
 
 0 
 
 Oh 
 
 33,569 
 
 883 
 
 415 
 
 0 
 
 Oh 
 
 33,320 
 
 205 
 
 65 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 
 32,370 
 
 738 
 
 284 
 
 0 
 
 
 31,162 
 
 2,693 
 
 886 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 30,423 
 
 579 
 
 53 
 
 0 
 
 
 29,806 
 
 3,384 
 
 1,007 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 30,811 
 
 76 
 
 45 
 
 0 
 
 oj 
 
 29,235 
 
 268 
 
 84 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 28,207 
 
 405 
 
 280 
 
 0 
 
 
 26,508 
 
 1,557 
 
 753 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 26,418 
 
 387 
 
 198 
 
 0 
 
 
 25,242 
 
 2,221 
 
 734 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 25,180 
 
 1,503 
 
 179 
 
 1 
 
 
 24,383 
 
 2,376 
 
 71 
 
 1 
 
 
 21,731 
 
 756 
 
 259 
 
 0 
 
 8^ 
 
 20,924 
 
 845 
 
 531 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 20,883 
 
 189 
 
 125 
 
 0 
 
 2^ 
 
 19,407 
 
 377 
 
 206 
 
 0 
 
 4| 
 
 18,647 
 
 657 
 
 372 
 
 0 
 
 8| 
 
 18,265 
 
 1,843 
 
 569 
 
 2 
 
 0^ 
 
 18,131 
 
 746 
 
 300 
 
 0 
 
 10 
 
 17,250 
 
 315 
 
 109 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 
TABLE Il.-(Continued). 
 
 City, Town, nr District. 
 
 Estimate of the 
 annual value of 
 Ileal Property as 
 assessed 1815. 
 
 Total amount 
 of Land Tax 
 assessed 1835. 
 
 Total 
 
 Amount 
 
 Redeemed. 
 
 Rate in 
 the Pound 
 about. 
 
 
 £. 
 
 
 £. 
 
 S. 
 
 d. 
 
 Carmarthen 
 
 16,684 
 
 166 
 
 25 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 16,582 
 
 1,309 
 
 993 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 Dover 
 
 16,400 
 
 480 
 
 338 
 
 0 
 
 7 
 
 Scarborough 
 
 14,505 
 
 157 
 
 124 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 Radnor 
 
 13,175 
 
 271 , 
 
 90 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 Bury St. Edmunds 
 
 - 13,020 
 
 1,972 
 
 453 
 
 3 
 
 0^ 
 
 Newbury, Borough 
 
 13,288 
 
 817 
 
 444 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 Monmouth 
 
 12,963 
 
 734 
 
 304 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 Newcastle, Stafford 
 
 12,609 
 
 165 
 
 45 
 
 0 
 
 
 Harwich 
 
 12,392 
 
 365 
 
 111 
 
 0 
 
 7 
 
 Hastings 
 
 11,934 
 
 264 
 
 109 
 
 0 
 
 
 Pool 
 
 10,870 
 
 163 
 
 90 
 
 0 
 
 
 Stamford 
 
 10,699 
 
 677 
 
 371 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 10,660 
 
 575 
 
 499 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Malmsbury 
 
 10,549 
 
 88 
 
 32 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 Faversham 
 
 9,493 
 
 462 
 
 282 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 Richmond, York 
 
 9,452 
 
 85 
 
 46 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 Pontefract 
 
 9,452 
 
 194 
 
 134 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 Ludlow 
 
 9,407 
 
 180 
 
 48 
 
 0 
 
 4^ 
 
 Bedford, Town 
 
 9,188 
 
 659 
 
 347 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 Romney, Kent 
 
 8,740 
 
 219 
 
 123 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 Wycombe 
 
 8,533 
 
 323 
 
 182 
 
 0 
 
 9i 
 
 Winchester 
 
 8,194 
 
 581 
 
 177 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 Leominster 
 
 7,852 
 
 269 
 
 51 
 
 0 
 
 8 
 
 Rye 
 
 7,230 
 
 326 
 
 173 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 Huntingdon, Borough 
 
 6,751 
 
 413 
 
 no 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 Grimsby 
 
 5,825 
 
 214 
 
 30 
 
 0 
 
 9^ 
 
 Banbury 
 
 5,878 
 
 140 
 
 14 
 
 0 
 
 5| 
 
 Stafford, Borough 
 
 5,780 
 
 188 
 
 47 
 
 0 
 
 n 
 
 Clitheroe 
 
 5,359 
 
 80 
 
 38 
 
 0 
 
 3^ 
 
 Tenby, Pembroke 
 
 5,000 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 Oi 
 
 Retford 
 
 4,586 
 
 76 
 
 59 
 
 0 
 
 44 
 
 Hythe 
 
 4,093 
 
 187 
 
 46 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 Sudbury 
 
 3,407 
 
 463 
 
 149 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 Folkestone 
 
 2,943 
 
 72 
 
 67 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 Woodstock 
 
 2,265 
 
 114 
 
 52 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 Winchelsea 
 
 2.230 
 
 342 
 
 96 
 
 
 1 
 
 Fordwich 
 
 1,003 
 
 77 
 
 35 
 
 1 
 
 
 Printed by W. H. Cox, 5, Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields.