clear that the development of local rates in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was not a category of philosophy, but a historical product-a natural result of the economic and political forces of the period. It Local finance. should have been equally plain that the indus

trial revolution which began at the end of the eighteenth century and the great political and administrative reforms which eventually followed must lead to financial changes and to a reform of the system of taxation. But Gneist maintains that the taxation of the occupier of visible immoveable property in a parish is the one and only correct principle of raising money to meet the expenses of local government.1 It is highly characteristic of Gneist's methods that he is more favourable to the financial organisation of modern "commercial self-government " than to its other aspects; and solely because no radical change has yet been made in the old law of rating. He concludes, therefore, that householders are still bound together by a "secure material link." Yet the inequitable incidence of local rates and the unsatisfactory condition of local taxation generally have been a favourite theme of Conservative and Liberal statesman alike, for more than half a century. The plan of dividing rates between the owner and the occupier has the authoritative sanction of the present Lord Goschen. Large inroads have been made upon old principles by the system of grants-in-aid, which has been carried


1 In addition to the works and official publications previously quoted and referred to upon the subject of local finance, it may here be mentioned that the leading German authority is Adolf Wagner, Finanzwissenschaft, Specielle Steuerlehre; Die britische und französiche Besteuerung, 1896, par. 10. As Wagner observes very truly, the rapid rise of grants-in-aid proves that the system (which Gneist describes as the only correct system) of raising local revenues by rates imposed on the occupiers of real property is not altogether satisfactory. But the most convincing evidence on this subject will be found in the recent reports of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation.

2 This important proposal escapes the attention of Gneist, who directs all the fury of his financial criticism against the device of compounding rateswhich he entirely misunderstands, thinking it means that the rates of small householders are to be paid in fact as well as in form by the landlord. The object of the contrivance is of course simply to save inconvenience; and the percentage allowed to the landlord is more than sufficient to cover the risk and trouble of collecting. The tenant pays his rent and rates together to the landlord, and the landlord hands on the rates to the local authority. Yet Gneist declares with absurd solemnity that the tenant thereby loses his legal "basis of participation in municipal life.”

[blocks in formation]

out mainly under Conservative auspices. A Radical scheme for the taxation of ground values has the support of Lord Balfour, a member of the present Cabinet (1902), who acted as Chairman of the late Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Another reform strongly urged by many municipal authorities is the rating of unoccupied land in towns. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has admitted the propriety of increasing the revenue derived from publichouse licenses. A Bill is brought in every year for the rating of machinery, and is, as a rule, strongly supported by the representatives of agriculture. In a word, the one department of "commercial self-government," of which Gneist approved, is the one department which gives unmixed dissatisfaction in England. The introduction of the representative principle into local government, which spelt ruin to Gneist, is neither questioned nor criticised. It has even been extended by a Unionist Parliament, without opposition, to all parts of Ireland. Whatever forms of organisation may be created or dissolved, the cardinal principles of representative democracy have taken firm root in the representative institutions of England. Further changes will probably be made in the system of education, and of poor relief, as well as in the law of licensing. But changes in the organisation of local government will not shake the elective principle. Parts of the superstructure which have been described in these pages may be altered, restored, or even rebuilt, but the political basis must remain. It is in the relation between imperial and local finance and in the system of rating that fundamental reforms are to be expected in the near future. If this work helps students of English local government to understand its possibilities and appreciate its value, if it helps to spread knowledge of institutions so gloriously old yet so vigorously young, if it does but aid and stimulate a higher kind of political and legal criticism, if for the jealous distrust which obtains in some quarters it can substitute a cautious and informed faith in the vital principles of English democracy, it will not have been undertaken in vain.

[blocks in formation]


Allsop v. Preston, J. J. (1899), 64 J.P. 25

A.-G. v. Mayor of Brecon (1878), 10 Ch. D. 204
A.-G. v. Rickmansworth (1902), 86 L.T. 521
A.-G. v. Tynemouth Corporation (1898), 1 Q.B. 604

Beal v. Town Clerk of Exeter (1887), 20 Q.B.D. 300
Beresford-Hope v. Lady Sandhurst (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 79
Boulter v. Kent, J. J., (1897), A.C. 556

Bright v. North (1847), 2 Phillips, 216, 16 L.J. Ch. 255.

Cleverton v. St. Germains Rural Sanitary Authority (1886), 56 L.J., Q. B. 83
Clutterbuck v. Taylor (1896), 1 Q.B. 395
Cook v. Ward (1877), 2 C.P.D. 255

[ocr errors]


. i. 381

ii. 127

ii. 127

. i. 380

ii. 185 ii. 13

i. 381 ii. 70

ii. 70 i. 283

. i. 307; ii. 129

Darlington Town Council v. Secretary of State, Q.B. 25th Nov. 1870
De Souza v. Cobden (1891), 1 Q.B. 687

Eaton v. Basker (1881), 7 Q.B.D. 529

Eccles v. Wirral Rural Sanitary Authority (1886), L. R. 17 Q.B.D. 107
Evans v. Conway, J.J. (1900), 2 Q.B. 224 .

Ferguson v. Kinnoul (1842), 8 Engl. Reports (H.L.), 412
Flintham v. Roxburgh (1886), 17 Q.B.D. 44

Gribthorpe School Board v. Gribthorpe Overseers (1883), 47 J.P. 727

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Hargreaves v. Hopper (1875), 1 C.P.D. 195
Hopkins v. Mayor of Swansea (1839), 4 M. and W. 621
Hounsell v. Suttill (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 498.

i. 246

i. 327

i. 289

Hythe, ex parte Corporation of (1840), 4 Y. and Coll. 55.

Johnson v. Mayor of Croydon (1886), L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 708
Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1880), L. R. 5 App. Cas. 214.

Kruse v. Johnson (1898), 2 Q.B. 91

i. 373

i. 330

i. 412

i. 330; ii. 80

[ocr errors]

Leith Council v. Leith Harbour and Docks Commissioners (1899),
Ap. Cas. 508

ii. 127

M'Intosh and the Pontypridd Improvement Company, Ltd. in re, (1891), 61 L.J., Q.B. 164

[blocks in formation]

Pritchard v. Mayor of Bangor (1888), 13 App. Cas. 241

i. 285

R. v. Mayor of Bideford (1883), 47 J.P. 756 i

R. v. Mayor of Bridgewater (1839), 10 A. and E. 286

R. v. Chantrell (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 587

R. v. Mayor of Exeter (1880), L. R. 6 Q.B.D. 135

R. v. Glamorgan County Council, ex parte Miller (1899), 2 Q. B. 26

R. v. Gordon (1818), 1 B. and Ald. 524

[blocks in formation]

R. v. L.G.B., 8th Annual Report of Board, p. cviii

R. v. L.C.C. (1893), 2 Q.B. 454

R. v. Ponsonby (1755), 1 Ves. 1

[ocr errors]

R. v. Poor Law Commissioners (1837), 6 Ad. and El. 54

R. v. Sainsbury (1791), 4 T.R. 451

R. v. Mayor of Sheffield (1871), L.R. 6 Q. B. 652

R. v. Stainforth (1847), 11 Q. B. 66


i. 364

i. 379 . ii. 368

. i. 346 ii. 72 ii. 220

i. 248

ii. 368

ii. 266, 366

ii. 295

. ii. 169

i. 245

ii. 268

i. 411

i. 364

i. 412

[blocks in formation]

Selmes v. Judge (1871), L.R. 6 Q.B. 724
Smith v. Robinson (1893), 2 Q. B. 53

i. 259

ii. 138

ii. 290

Strickland v. Hayes (1896), 74 L.T. (N.S.), 137

Tynemouth Corporation v. A.-G. (1899), App. Cas. 303

West Lancashire R. D. C. v. Ogilvy (1899), 1 Q.B. 377
Whitthorn v. Thomas (1844), 7 Man. and G. 1

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

23 Edw. III. st. 2, Labourers and Artificers (1349)

i. 12

25 Edw. III. st. 2, caps. 1 and 2, Labourers and Artificers (1351)

i. 12

34 Edw. III. c. 1, Justice of the Peace (1360)

i. 12

[blocks in formation]

ii. 66

i. 7

i. 23

22 Henry VIII. c. 5, Statute of Bridges (1531)

31 Henry VIII. c. 8, Statute of Proclamations (1540)

39 Eliz. c. 3, Poor Relief (1597)

43 Eliz. c. 2, Poor Relief (1601)

s. 3 s. 2

1 Jac. I. c. 31, Plague Act (1604)

16 Car. I. c. 10, Habeas Corpus Act (1640) 14 Car. II. c. 4, Act of Uniformity (1662).

14 Car. II. c. 12, Poor Relief Act (1662)

25 Car. II. c. 2, Test Act (1672)

31 Car. II. c. 2, Habeas Corpus Act (1679)

9 Anne c. 5, Property Qualification of Justices (1710)

1 Will. and M. c. 2, Bill of Rights (1689)

3 and 4 Will. and M. c. 11, Poor Relief Act (1691)

8 and 9 Will. III. c. 30, Removal of the Poor Act (1697).

12 and 13 Will. III. c. 2, Act of Settlement (1700)

9 Anne c. 5, Property Qualification of Justices Act (1710)
12 Geo. II. c. 29, Bridge (County Rate) Act (1739)

18 Geo. II. c. 20, Property Qualification of Justices (1744)
25 Geo. II. c. 36, Disorderly House Act (1751)
25 Geo. II. c. 36, Bridge (County Rate) Act (1739)
22 Geo. III. c. 45, Contractors Act (1782).
22 Geo. III. c. 82, Board of Trade Act (1782)
22 Geo. III. c. 83, Relief of the Poor Act (1782)

52 Geo. III. c. 146, Parochial Registers Act (1812)

55 Geo. III. c. 51, County Rates Act (1815), s. 1

56 Geo. III. c. 100, Habeas Corpus Act (1816)
57 Geo. III. c. 34, Public Works Loan Act (1817).

57 Geo. III. c. 124, Public Works Loan Act (1817)

7 Geo. IV. c. 32, Board of Trade Act (1826)

7 Geo. IV. c. 63, County Buildings Act (1826)

9 Geo. IV. c. 61, Alehouse Act (1828), s. 29

2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 45, Reform Act (1832)

2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 64, Parliamentary Boundaries Act (1832) 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 90, Lighting and Watching Act (1833)

[blocks in formation]
« ElőzőTovább »