have been made it has been held that the character I have referred to, with exthere is a beneficial occupation, and on ceptions which were made upon grounds that occupation rates have been laid. For not supposed to affect those decisions, up instance, in the case of a Quakers' school to the period when Lord Campbell became it was held that it could not be treated Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Lord as an institution for public purposes be- Campbell took a strong view with respect cause a payment of £12 a year was made to exemptions, and in his opinion exempfor pupils, and so a direct benefit was re- tions were not justifiable, or, at all events, ceived from it, and the institution was not politic. He took a stringent view of not exempted. But, in addition to this, all cases of exemption that came before there is a most material circumstance to him, but even under those circumstances be considered if the law is to remain in I am not aware that in any case of a disits present state. For what is the case tinct charity, where its appropriation to with respect to statutable exemptions? In public purposes was the main and distinct many instances canal companies, gas com- object, and no private benefit was sought, panies, persons who have reclaimed land, he overruled the decisions that were up to are exempted from liability beyond what that time in force. The Mersey Docks, no that property was subject to at the time doubt, stand upon a different footing. It it was first taken for their purposes. In may be fairly argued that there is a distinct many cases such land has become of enor- beneficial occupation, because the trustees mous value. The London Gas Company raise funds upon bonds, and levy tolls or possess land of immense value, and the rates to pay the interest. There is, thererating is very low on account of statutable fore, a distinct beneficial occupation in exemptions, many of which exemptions raising money to pay off debts which they were given because it was supposed the pro- had contracted. But the decision of the perty was to be used for public purposes. House of Lords recognized no such disI wish to ask the House whether scientific tinction from charitable institutions, for and literary institutions are to stand upon Lord Westbury, in giving his judgment, a better footing than those great charities called the attention of their Lordships to or not? They are exempted by statute. the question of the manner in which pubFor instance, there is the Linnæan So- lic charities might be affected by their ciety, which is a most excellent institu- judgment. The noble and learned Lord tion and most useful-is that to be put said— upon the footing of charitable institutions such as I have described - hospitals, schools, reformatories, asylums, and institutions of that nature? Again, there is a literary institution and library society at Bradford, which seemed to me to be very like a reading-room, and that is exempted from rateability under the statute which exempts literary institutions. How can the Government allow that state of things to continue while charities are rated? Now I have detained the House more than I originally intended, but it was difficult to explain what I wished without going rather into detail. I would sum up what I have said in this way. By the statute of Elizabeth occupiers were to be rated in respect of their occupations of property; and the interpretation which from the beginning up to the decision of last year has been put upon that occupation must be that it is what is termed a beneficial occupation. That interpretation was confirmed repeatedly, and especially by the decision of Lord Mansfield, which has been followed up by one continued current of decisions exempting all those charities of

Mr. Gathorne Hardy

"Independently of the decided cases-several of which are irreconcilable with each other-it would seem easy to answer this inquiry; and having regard to the Parochial Assessment Act it may be said, in answer, that Occupation to be rateable must be of property yielding, or capable of yielding, a net annual value-that is to say, a clear rent over and above the probable average cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the property in a state to command such rent.' It is in this sense I understand the words 'beneficial occupation,' whenever it is said that to support a rate the occupation must be a beneficial one. principle it is by no means necessary that the occupation should be beneficial to the occupier. It is sufficient if the property be capable of a clear rent over and above the necessary outgoings. So trustees who are in law the tenants and occupiers of valuable property upon trust for charitable purposes, such as hospitals and lunatic asylums, are in principle rateable, notwithstanding who are sick or insane." that the buildings are actually occupied by paupers

For on

So that any building or any occupation capable of producing rental is, in Lord Westbury's view, subject to being rated. Does not the principle extend to Crown and Government property? For instance, officers at Woolwich occupy houses taken

just made by the hon. Member. He quite concurred with the hon. Member, that the rating of these institutions had a chilling and prejudicial effect on the voluntary principle of charity which prevailed in this country. To illustrate the probable operation of the law as it stood under the late decision, he might instance the case of certain charities in Manchester rated at the value of £6,000 yearly, which would become liable to local taxation to the amount of £1,000; a result which would be regarded with anything but satisfaction by the inhabitants of Manchester. That was a large sum to deprive charitable institutions of, when it was recollected that of the 50,000 children wandering about the streets of that city they had succeeded solely by voluntary efforts of charity in rescuing 20,000 from ignorance and crime. He hoped the Government would give the matter their serious consideration, and that they would not thus check the efforts of charity which was doing so much to subdue crime.

by the Government for their use, and they are exempted from rateability because they occupy as the servants of the Crown, the Crown itself being considered the real occupier. Now, it may be said that this is a hardship on the parish, and it becomes more so if the exemption, on the ground of public good, be done away in other cases; but I will say nothing more about the Crown property. With regard to charities, the benefits they confer more than make up for any little loss they inflict on the parishes; and so with hospitals, the direct benefit they give to the parishes more than compensates for any rates which the parishes might obtain. If those cha rities, such as hospitals and infirmaries, are not to be exempted, while they take in poor people from the parishes, the time may come when it will be necessary for the trustees or managers to say, "We are paying rates, and you must pay us for your paupers, if they come into our hospitals and infirmaries." Under the circumstances I have pointed out, I believe that legislation upon the subject is necessary to prevent litigation, if the judgment of the House of Lords in the Mersey Dock case is not conclusive on the point; and, if it is conclusive, then legislation is equally necessary, in order to do away with the statutable exemptions to which I have directed the attention of the House, and which ought not to exist, as they never would have been granted except on the supposition that Lord Mansfield's and the subsequent decisions were in force. I will, in conclusion, ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether the rating placed on these institutions, to which I have referred, has been placed upon them at the instance of the Poor Law Board; whether the Poor Law Board, subsequently to the decision of last year, sent out any instruc-perty, but the property of all public tions to parochial officers, calling upon institutions should be rated. Upon that them to rate those charitable institutions; recommendation Mr. Sotheron Estcourt inif so, whether they have any objection to lay those instructions upon the table of the House; whether they are prepared to legislate with a view of putting rating generally on a fairer footing, and of applying some better principle than that of a hypothetical tenancy; and lastly, are they prepared to exempt charities; and, if not, are they prepared to repeal the statutory exemptions to which I have referred in the course of my speech?

MR. BAZLEY said, he hoped that full consideration would be given to the points submitted to the House in the statement

MR. LOCKE desired, in consequence of the observations of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley), to state that a very different opinion on the subject was entertained a few years back. When the late Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was President of the Poor Law Board, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was Under Secretary of the Home Department, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the propriety of rating Government and other public property. At his (Mr. Locke's) suggestion, the inquiry was extended to all public property; and the Committee, which was presided over by the late Mr. Wilson, agreed to a Report which recommended that not only Government pro

troduced a Bill for the purpose of rating all public property whatever, including Government property, hospitals, and every description of place throughout the country. That was considered a right and just principle. It was obvious that if they exempted a public building or hospital, the inhabitants of the parish in which it was must pay a larger proportion of rates. The word " оссиру "had been twisted and turned about for many generations. At last a decision in regard to the rating of hospitals had been given by Lord Westbury, who certainly was in the habit of

looking things full in the face.
eminent man was very much like Lord
Abinger, who frequently remarked that he
would throw on one side all the decisions
of the Courts of Law, and that he would
judge for himself. Lord Abinger, on many
occasions, set aside a number of decisions,
and his judgments were subsequently dis-
covered to be perfectly correct; and there
was no doubt that the decision of Lord
Westbury would be found equally right.
The Governors of the Mersey Docks ap-
peared to be a class of people who de-
rived no benefit from them. They had
borrowed a large sum of money, and out
of the tolls levied on vessels entering the
docks the interest on the loan was paid.
It was evident that, where buildings in a
parish were exempt from paying rates,
those levied upon the other houses must
be higher than they would be if there
were no exemption. This was the prin-
ciple laid down by the Government of
Lord Derby; and he would ask his right
hon. Friend the President of the Poor
Law Board whether some amendment in
the law with regard to this matter was
not required. Should legislative proceed-
ings be taken, he would press upon the
Government the advisability of considering
not only the poor people in the hospitals,
but the poor people out of them. Beth-
lehem Hospital, alluded to by the hon.
Member for Oxford, was allowed to go
scot free. When the matter came before
the Court of Quarter Sessions for Surrey,
he was then practising at those sessions;
but ever since the exemption of that
institution from liability to pay rates, a
large number of people in the parish in
which it was situated had been unceasing
in their complaints of the injustice which
it occasioned. This was a point which
ought to be considered; and he had made
these observations in order that both sides
of the question should be brought under
the notice of his right hon. Friend the
President of the Poor Law Board.

That House of Lords, and deal with the argu-
ment in that case; because, had he under-
stood that this was his determination, not
having had the opportunity of seeing that
judgment, he would have asked him to
postpone the Question till a future night.
The House, however, had heard the hon.
Member, who had come well prepared
with his subject, and taken issue with
the House of Lords in the judgment it
had pronounced. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY:
I stated distinctly that I agreed with it.]
The agreement was rather extraordinary,
because the hon. Member had only referred
to the single Judge who differed from the
House of Lords, and he had also to a cer-
tain extent impugned their judgment; for
he said that its results must be unjust and
would operate inequitably. The hon. Gen
tleman had not, however, mentioned that
the House of Lords in this matter sought
the assistance of the Judges-a course but
rarely adopted-and that it was after
hearing their opinions-united, with one
exception that the House of Lords
unanimously confirmed the judgment now
impugned, or rather complained of, by the
hon. Member. He would therefore ask
the House to view this case as one that
had been decided by the House of Lords,
as one that had already been decided in
the courts of justice, where the Judges had
refused to decide against the judgment of
the House of Lords. It was what was
termed a legislative exposition of the
statute of Elizabeth, at once putting an
end to all the questions on this subject
that had been so frequently raised before
the courts. But this was not all that he
had to complain of. The hon. Member had
stated that the House of Lords had re-
versed the current of decision and of all
the judgments of previous authorities for
more than a century-an assertion which
was not correct as to the period of time.
If the hon. Gentleman will refer to that
judgment he will find that all the decisions
during that period of time had been re-
viewed and were found to be exceedingly
conflicting. Until this judgment was deli-
vered the question as to whether charitable
institutions should be called upon to pay
rates had never been settled. Looking at the
enormous evil that arose from the uncertain-
ty of the law, and the injustice perpetrated
by the exemptions of certain premises from
the liability to pay rates, so far from the
introduction of the subject to the highest
court of the country being a misfortune, as
the hon. Gentleman would seem to imply,

MR. C. P. VILLIERS said, that the apology of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for having entered further into the subject under discussion than he had intended was unnecessary. But he might complain a little of the hon. Member's procedure. Not quite understanding the nature of his Question and the course he intended to pursue, he (Mr. Villiers) had asked him whether it was his intention to impugn the judgment lately given in the Mr. Locke

passed ten or twelve years in the diplo- / which their own Government were on matic service, he had given some considera- terms of neutrality; and it was an act of tion to the subject of International Law, hostility to fit out in a neutral State a ship and he believed that from defects and in- to prey upon the commerce of a nation efficiency our existing Neutrality Law was with which the Government was at peace. not only fraught with future danger to This was not always the law, because the ourselves, but was calculated to prevent subjects of a State at peace used formerly us from acting justly towards our allies. to enter in great numbers the service of The unfriendly feeling which to so large foreign Powers engaged in war; but that an extent existed in the United States to- state of things had disappeared with the wards this country owed its origin chiefly notion that war was the normal condition to the losses which American commerce of the human race. He knew that there had suffered, arising, as the Americans be- were gentlemen who believed that there lieved, from the inadequacy of our Neutra- was no difference between a gun and a lity Law; and this ill-feeling he believed ship, and that trading in both ought either to be the groundwork of that tacit sym- to be equally forbidden or to be equally pathy with Fenianism which existed in allowed. Intrinsically, perhaps, there the States of that country. Naturally irri- might be no difference if both were delitated at the losses inflicted by Confederate vered at the port of a belligerent. The cruisers, the American Government, while distinction lay in the place of delivery. the war was yet going on, had several Supplying arms to a belligerent Power times called upon Her Majesty's Ministers could not be constituted an act of hostility to propose an alteration in the law. That until the delivery had been effected at the demand was refused, and refused, he be- port of the belligerent Power; but directly lieved, rightly, because it would not have a ship armed and equipped for the purpose been consistent with absolute impartiality of preying upon the commerce of a nation between the two belligerents to alter a law with which we were at peace left our which, under the then existing circum- ports, its sailing might be regarded as an stances, affected only one of them. More- act of hostility. As a belligerent Power over, Her Majesty's Ministers would pro- could not, of course, prevent the sailing bably only have made matters worse by of such a ship from a neutral port, internaasking Parliament to alter the law; be- tional obligations had imposed upon neucause he believed that, owing to the strong tral nations themselves the necessity of Confederate feeling which then existed, restraining their subjects from infringing the House of Commons would have refused them. That was the doctrine which usuto make the required alteration. There ally obtained among nations at the present was also a strong objection always latent time. At all events, it was the doctrine in the minds of Englishmen to do anything to which both English and American stateswhich savoured of yielding to the bidding men had pledged their respective counof a foreign Power, especially when the tries. He did not think it would be diffi request was made in language rather me- cult to show that this was the case. For nacing than conciliatory. But the circum- instance, when in 1793 we asked the stances were now widely different. The United States to prevent vessels of war war was now over, and the passions which leaving their ports for the purpose of that conflict had aroused had had time to cruising under the French flag against our subside. They had refused, standing more commerce, we based our demands upon on technical right than acting on a sound international obligation. And, again, in and generous policy, to consider the claims the discussion which took place before the made by America for compensation, or to passing of our Foreign Enlistment Act, in refer those claims to arbitration; and he 1819, Lord Castlereagh used the following believed that the period had now arrived words: when a law productive of so much evil ought to be revised, not only in the interests of this country, but also with the view of promoting international morality. Whatever might once have been the state of public law in Europe, there was now an international obligation laid upon every State to prevent its subjects from engaging in acts of hostility against any Power with Mr. Labouchere

"It is a duty which we owe to Spain and to our own honour, while we profess to be at peace with her, not to allow ships of war to be equipped in our ports, or allow armaments to sail from them against her."

In America the same doctrine has been always held. General Washington's Proclamation, enjoining neutrality to American subjects, preceded the passing of the