TOPICS OF THE DAY.
AGRICULTURAL RATING.
IT is very greatly to be hoped that when the Government introduce their Bill to renew the Agricultural Rites Act they will put their case better than they put it last time. They had an overwhelming case from the point of view both of justice and sound finance, and yet they put it so baldly, so timidly, so apologetically, that they gave their opponents abundance of controversial ground for representing the measure as a dole to the squires and farmers, or as a piece of plunder committed on the public Treasury for the benefit of the Government's special friends, the agricultural interest. Yet in reality there was nothing substantial in these rhetorical accusations. The so-called dole was a bare piece of justice which had been too long delayed. The weakest and most impoverished industry in the United Kingdom had long been unfairly exposed to a heavy and exceptional burden, and the Government relieved it of half this burden. That was the truth of the matter. But the Government advocates of the Bill never took the trouble to bring this really home to the public, but. let the Opposition vapourings as to doles and plunder and the like go almost uncontradicted.
For fear that the same blunder may be again com- mitted, and that the Government speakers and writers, instead of carrying the war into the enemy's country and justifying their Bill as it can be justified, will hang their heads and doggedly say the Bill must pass, we propose to set forth some of the grounds on which the Bill can be and ought to be defended as a simple act of justice. The first and essential thing to make the public understand is what the rates really are. They are in theory, and were originally intended to be, a kind of local Income-tax, which made each person in a parish contribute to the local needs in accordance with his means and ability as witnessed by his possessions within the parish. This local Income- tax continued for a time to be fairly collected, but gradually it became the custom in most parishes only to collect the rate (i.e., the proportion due) from the clearly visible property in the parish,--i.e., land, houses, buildings, tithes, underwoods, and mines. In other words, all forms of property except real property slipped their heads out of the collar, and left realty alone to draw the coach of local taxation. But though this was the almost universal custom, it was not the law, and in the year 1840 the rate-levying and rate-collecting bodies had a rude awakening. In that year the Court of Queen's Bench decided that stock-in-trade—i.e., visible personal property—in the parish was bound to pay rates. This was, of course, an entire revolution in practice, if not in theory, but it was so clearly sound that the Poor-law Commissioners felt obliged to act at once on the decision of the Court, and even went so far as to issue a circular advising churchwardens that they most in future "levy rates on stock-in-trade accord- ing to the profits produced." But the prospect of having to pay rates on such profits very naturally did not please the owners of personal property, and at hot speed a short Act was hurried through Parliament in order to exempt per- sonal property from rates. But it was felt that this was not altogether a just proceeding, and the Act was only passed for one year in order that the whole subject should be reconsidered. But the reconsideration never came, and every year for sixty-one years the Act has been kept alive by being placed in the schedule of the Act for keeping alive expiring Acts. This extraordinary Act shall be quoted in full in spite of considerations of space, in order that our readers may fully realise the true position :— "3 & 4 Vier. CAP. LXXXIX.
" An Act to exempt, until the Thirty-first Day of December One thousand eight hundred and forty-one, Inhabitants of Parishes, Townships, and Villages from Liability to be rated as such, in respect of Stock in Trade or other Pro- perty, to the relief of the Poor. [10th August, 1S40.] "Whereas by an Act passed in the Forty-third Year of the
Reign of Queen Eiizabeth, intituled An Act for the Relief of the Poor, it was amongst other things provided, that the Overseers of every Parish should raise, by Taxation of every Inhabitant, Parson, Vicar, and other., and of every occupier of Lands, Houses. Tithes Impropriate, Propriations of Tithes, Coal Mines, or sale- able ITnderwoods, in the said Parish, in such competent Sam and Sums of Money as they shall think fit, a convenient Stock of necessary Ware and Stuff to set the Poor on Work, and also competent Sums of Money for and towards the Relief of the Poor not able to work, and also for the putting out of poor Children to be Apprentices, to be gathered out of the same Parish according to the ability of the same : And whereas by another Act passed in the Session of Parliament holden in the Thirteenth and Four. 4 teenth Years of the Reign of Bing Charles the Second, intituled An Act for the better Relief of the Poor of this Kingdom,' the Provisions of the said Act of Elizabeth were extended to certain Townships and Villages : And whereas, by reason of the Pro- visions of the said Acts, it has been held that Inhabitants of Parishes, Townships, and Villages, as such Inhabitants, are liable, in respect of their Ability derived from the Profits of Stock in Trade and of other Property, to be taxed for and towards the Relief of the Poor, and it is expedient to repeal the Liability of Inhabitants, as such, to be taxed. Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for the Over- seers of any Parish, Township, or Village to tax any Inhabitant thereof, as such Inhabitant, in respect of his Ability derived from the Profits of Stock in Trade or any other Property, for or towards the Relief of the Poor : Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall in anywise affect the liability of any Parson or Vicar, or of any Occupier of Lands, Houses, Tithes Impropriate, Propriations of Tithes, Coal Mines, or saleable Underwoods, to be taxed under the Provisions of the said Acts for and towards the Belief of the Poor."
The position, then, is this. Instead of the owners or occupiers of land being exempted by a special statute from half the rates in respect of their ability derived from the profits of land, the owners of "stock-in-trade and other property" are by a special annual statute exempted from paying any rates "in respect of their ability derived from the profits of stock-in-trade or any other property." Thus, instead of the landowner and farmer being specially favoured, it is the owner of personal property who is really favoured. But striking as is this anomaly, and strong as is the position of the advocates of justice to real property in regard to rating afforded by this statute, the spokesmen of the Govern- ment five years ago never took the trouble to press the point home. Equally apathetic have been the private Members who considered themselves as supporters of the agricultural interest in the House. If they had been as active in this matter as in encouraging proposals for taxing corn, they would never have allowed the futile and unjust annual Rating Act we have just quoted to be renewed with- out a protest. Each year they would have pointed to the fact that Parliament was specially exempting personal property from rates, and specially imposing rates upon realty, and would have demanded that if the rating ques- tion was to be dealt with at all by statute, it must be dealt with equitably, and not in this unjust as well as rough-and-ready fashion. But unfortunately it never seems to have occurred to a county Member to take this step, and for sixty years the Act appears to have been assented to without comment. No doubt it would not have been possible actually to refuse to renew the Act, as the result would have been confusion, but that was no reason against a vigorous protest. Especially should this protest have been made of late years, when laud has been said to be unduly favoured. If during the last five years we had been each year reminded that, on the contrary, it was personal property that was unduly favoured, the country would have been far better instructed on the matter than it now is. We may add that we our- selves drew attention to this way of informing public opinion on the subject five years ago, but our appeals bad no effect on the somnolence of the Unionist county Members.
But if historically and legally the advocates of the Agricultural Rating Act have a strong case, they have a still stronger one if the subject is considered from the point of view of equitable finance. Let us study the rural rating question, not in the abstract., but in the vil- lages and fields, and see how it works out, and then ask whether it is just. In the village of Little Pedlington live side by side a farmer who owns his own farm of two hundred acres, rated at £1 an acre, and who, after paying mortgages and family charges on it, makes a clear income out of it of about £200 a year ; a retired merchant who owns a large villa and grounds of five acres. and. who has an income of £2,000; a local auctioneer who -does business in the district, and whose income is £200 a year ;" and a parson with £200 a year from tithe. All these men benefit about equally in the things on which rural rates are spent,—poor relief, schools, rural sanitation, police, roads, and so on. They ought therefore to contri- bute to them in accordance with their ability. Let us see how they, in fact, contribute, the rate being at 2s.. in the pound. The farmer's house and farm buildings are rated at .430 a year. He pays on this -23 a year. On his two hundred acres of purely agricultural land rated at £1 an acre the rate would be ..£20 a year, but as he only pays half he is only £10 a year out of pocket for agricultural rates. Thus his rates would altogether be £13 a year. Next take the retired merchant. Let us assume that his house and grounds would be rated at £70 a year,—we have known cases where they would be put lower. In that case he would pay £7 a year in rates. Next would come the auctioneer. If his house were rated at £20 a year he would probably think himself ill-used, but let us take £20 a year as his rating. He would then pay .Z2 a year in rates. Next take the clergyman. His vicarage would perhaps be rated as low as £20 a year, though that is most unlikely. He would pay £2 a year for his house. But he would also pay on his tithe of £200 .Z10 a year. Thus his total would be £12. The following, then, are the rates of contribution from the three men with .Z200 each of income :— • The Farmer pays in rates ... ••• E.13
• The Auctioneer pays in rates... 2 The Parson pays in rates ... 12 while the man with £2,000 a year, or ten times as much income, pays £7 a year. We have intentionally kept these figures low, and not taken the very hard cases, though plenty
• of instances are known to all country people in which the contrasts are much more glaring. But even on our figures can it be said that it would be reasonable to repeal or not renew the Rates Act of 1896, and make our farmer pay £23 A year and our parson £22 a year, while the auctioneer only continued to pay £2 a year, and the retired merchant only £7? Only one answer can be given to such a question. And remember the question can be put in a much more striking form if exceptional, and not normal, cases are taken.
• If the Government take the trouble to put their case as we have suggested—and with the oratorical skill at their disposal we dare say that they can put it much better- • they will no doubt be met with the objections (1) that rates are an hereditary burden on land, and (2) that the grievance • is just as great in the towns. The answer to the first is that those who use it are the victims of a metaphysical paradox. It is not the land but the man who pays. Taxes do not spring from the land like the larks from thelurrows, but from the purse of a living man. You may measure • the amount of a tax by the amount of a man's land, or by - the size of his pocket-handkerchief, but it is -he, and not the land or the handkerchief, that pays. Besides, if rates are an hereditary burden on land, so is the Income-tax on Consols, or on the salaries of journalists, and ought never to be reduced. No doubt there are great rating grievauces in the towns,and they ought to be abated. But the land and tithe grievances were the most iniquitous, and their relief does not prejudice the relief of the town grievances. In truth rates should be levied on no industry or machinery, but on dwelling houses only. In this way they would become a fairly just local Income-tax, for as a rule a man's income varies with the value of his house. The rates on railways might be commuted to a local Passenger-tax.
Before we leave the subject we will condense our advice to those who will be responsible for getting up the Govern- ment case into a single sentence. Consider the Act of 1840, take note of Lord Denman's judgment in the trial in the Queen's Bench, and do not be afraid of hurting the feelings of the rich men who live in the country and whose contribution to local rates when measured by their ability is absolutely derisory.
Previous page
