HC Deb 17 April 1883 vol 278 cc437-528
MR. PELL,

in rising to call attention to the severe and inequitable pressure of Local Taxes; and to move— That no further delay should be allowed in granting adequate relief to ratepayers in Counties and Boroughs in respect of National services required of Local Authorities, said, that in 1872 the House gave its consideration to the question of local taxation as a whole, when the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) reaped the reward not only of his perseverance and ability, but also of the merits of the case. He then succeeded in obtaining a majority of 100 in the House in favour of a Resolution condemning the injustice of the then existing system of local taxation, which, unfortunately, still continued—namely, of imposing taxation for national objects on one description of property only. Although that system had been modified by some grants out of the public funds, it still remained on terms under which the nation required from Local Authorities costly services of a national character. He did not desire to insist on the fact that it was a Liberal Government which was then in Office, because the question was one which ought to be entirely divested of Party feeling and Party consideration. The interest of the public would be best served by appealing neither to one side or the other. The case must rest upon its merits. The Government of the day met the Motion of the hon. Member for South Devon much in the same way as they intended to meet this Motion—by an Amendment; at all events, they encouraged the Amendment, for, if he remembered rightly, the Tellers on that occasion were Government Tellers. The Amendment then, as now, was intended to divert the attention of the House from the real question at issue—namely, that the injustice complained of should not be met by procrastination and delay. It was a strange Amendment, for the hon. Gentleman who moved it in 1872, declared that it was desirable the Government of the day should pass by the question of injustice and consider only whether or not it was desirable, having regard to the progress of sanitary legislation, that the new rates which would necessarily follow that course of legislation should be divided between the owner and the occupier. A very pretty Amendment! More rates and new rates to be equitably divided between owner and occupier, so that no other class benefited should be put under the slightest contribution. But, before going further, he wished to make a public recantation. The view embodied in the Amendment was the view of a person most competent to deal with the question—namely, the right hon. Member for Ripon, and at the time he opposed the proposition; but he now believed it was of value, and that great good would be derived from such a division of the rates. They were witnesses to a lamentable degree of apathy on the part of owners of real property with respect to this question which it was painful to contemplate. Perhaps that apathy could only be explained by the knowledge that the occupier was the first to smart for new rates, and that the owner did not feel the inconvenience until the termination of the tenancy, when the rent had to be readjusted. He believed that to-night they had another Government which would sanction the evasion of the real question, and that there would be a disinclination to come to a decision as the necessity and justice of granting prompt relief. The hon. Member who would move the Amendment knew perfectly well that its effect would be delay. There was a great deal in it which they all admitted; but he could not consent to the assumption that the only way Members on this side of the House saw out of the difficulty was by putting their hands into the Imperial Exchequer. Many Members on the Opposition side shared with him the view that any relief to be granted ought to be accompanied by the reform of local administration. But what they said was, that if that question was to be handled first they might have a very long time to wait, and, therefore, the last line or two of the Amendment which recited— That a measure dealing with the whole question of Local Taxation and of Local Government, is most urgently required, implied nothing less than delay and an excuse for the Government in not dealing with the question. So emphatic a decision as the House came to in 1872 could not fail of its effect. It proved to be one of the signs and warnings of the fall of the Government of the day, and within two years there was a change of Government. There had been two General Elections since, and two changes of Ministry. There had also been a very great change in the composition of the House. There were many new faces in the House, and there might be many new views upon this subject. They would probably hear to-night propositions of a novel kind, though they might contain truths not yet put before the House. But, at all events, these changes and this lapse of time placed the Mover of such a Resolution as his in the position of one who passed over untrodden ground, uncertain what surprises he might meet with, uncertain as to who might prove a foe or who a friend. He would say, however, that he knew one who was not a friend to the view which he and many others held, and that was the hon. Gentleman who intended to move the Amendment (Mr. A. Grey). It could not be said of him, or those who were going to vote with him, that they were eager for a speedy solution of the question, and removal of what was inequitable and unjust in local taxation. If his Amendment was really intended to relieve ratepayers, all he could say was that it was so weak in the loins that it would be of no service at all on the day of battle, but rather an encumbrance. The hon. Member for Northumberland had only had three years experience in that House, and up to the present time the hon. Member had not played a very conspicuous part in the treatment of this subject. This, however, he would say, that with a political nature that had up to the present been regarded as guileless, the hon. Member's Friends must blush to see him put on the Paper an Amendment which, on the very face of it, bore testimony to its having been prepared by some of the "oldest schemers." The Amendment was certainly not that of a young man. Passing that by, he would point out that the subject-matter of his Motion had not dwindled in proportions since 1872. The sums of money now involved were larger than ever, new charges having been imposed on Local Authorities. These charges had increased and were still increasing as requirements on Local Authorities for national services, and it became the duty of Parliament to give some time to their consideration. One question alone had absorbed the attention and time of Parliament in a marked degree—namely, Ireland. Though loss sensational, and perhaps as little understood, the question of taxing the nation by local agents was of equal importance. In consequence of the manner in which the statistics had been presented to the House, he should have to confine his observations almost exclusively to the subject of local taxation as it affected England and Wales, although Scotland and Ireland were as largely interested in the question. A yearly revenue amounting at the present time to more than £55,000,000 was involved in the question, without reference either to Scotland or Ireland, and nearly half of that sum was raised from rates. But that was not all. If the revenue raised in that way met all the charges that were imposed, one might pass the matter by; but the worst feature of the case was that loans amounting to the emormous sum of more than £144,000,000 also marked the progress of expenditure. That was a sum equal to about one-fifth of the whole National Debt. There was a special danger connected with that huge local debt, as distinguished from the National Debt—namely, that attention was hardly ever paid to it. Many of the objects for which this revenue was raised were ephemeral, and ought to be met by money out of pocket. Manchester, for instance, without winking, gaily put its hand to a debt of £1,000,000 for a structure, worthy, he admitted, of the town, but a structure which might at any time become a costly bonfire. We met our war charges by payments out of income, and, in the same way, we ought to meet the charges necessary for waging war against disease and poverty. Real property in England was absolutely in pawn for local loans, and was covered with scattered monuments telling of wasteful expenditure—such monuments as closed gaols, unoccupied workhouses, and the results in brick and mortar of sanitary experiments conceived in some great Department of State, and materialized by doctors, engineers, and builders. Parliament was in a better position now to review the whole question than in 1872. In 1869 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) complained of the Returns issued by the Home Office, saying that they contained many errors, and complimented Mr. Ward Hunt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon his endeavours to supplement the Returns by independent information. The right hon. Gentleman then said that if the aggregate amount of taxation was too great on certain descriptions of property, it would be the duty of Parliament to take the matter in hand. That was in 1869; but Parliament had not yet dealt with the question as a whole. Referring to the way in which this subject had been dealt with in Parliament, he wished to remind the House that in 1846 the House of Lords appointed a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining what relief could be given to real property in respect of the local burdens. That Committee recommended that relief should be given to landed property in respect of criminal prosecutions, the entire cost of pauper lunatics, and the salaries of Poor Law officers, and they refused to draw a distinction between owners and oc- cupiers. The recommendations of the Committee had, to some extent, been carried out. Its appointment was followed by a Motion brought forward by the late Lord Beaconsfield, who, on the 8th of March, 1849, moved for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject, his Motion, however, being a sort of backhanded blow directed against Free Trade. On that occasion, Mr. Hume moved an Amendment to the effect that the Public Expenditure was excessive, and he recommended the abolition of the Malt and Hop Duties in order to give the people threpenny beer for a penny, and thus to encourage home produce as against foreign. Sir Charles Wood, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that local taxation did impose a special burden upon the land, but argued that that was the price which the land paid for local self-government. He was, however, afraid that in the present day but little remained of local self-government for the land but the name. In 1850, on February 10th, Mr. Disraeli made another Motion to refer to a Committee of the Whole House a proposal for the revision of the laws providing for the relief of the poor, with the view of mitigating the then existing agricultural distress. A distinct request was then put forward on behalf of the landowners that they should be relieved of a charge of some £2,000,000 sterling per annum in respect of the Poor Law establishment charges and other matters. The present Prime Minister then said— When he looked to the Motion he saw that which was true, honest, and reasonable involved in it. …He would vote for it on the ground of its justice. It was impossible to look at the nature of the tax for the support of the poor without being struck by the inequality of its incidence. But the objection of impractibility did not, at any rate, apply to the proposal now before the House. That was perfectly practicable, and if it were not free from imperfection, it was an approximation to justicec…. The relief of the poor was a purpose for which, as far as could be done, all property, and not one description of property only, should be liable…. He did not believe that in one case out of a hundred the farmer who held the farm from year to year would lose the benefit which this change would give in consequence of the landlords raising his rent to a proportionate amount."—(3 Hansard, [108] 1207–8–9–10.) In the year 1850, the House of Lords again appointed a Committee to sit upon the question of the assessment of the land for the relief of the poor, and that Committee reported— That the relief of the poor is a national object, towards which every description of property should justly contribute, and that the Act of 43 Elizabeth, c. 2, contemplated such contribution according to the ability of every inhabitant. In 1851, Sir Charles Wood, in his Budget Speech, expressed his view that this claim for relief to the land of £2,000,000 ought not to be allowed; but he would give part of the cost of pauper lunatics equal to the cost of ordinary paupers, estimating this at £150,000. In 1868, the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) brought forward a Motion to the effect that as local charges had much increased, and were increasing, it was not just or politic "that all these burdens should be levied exclusively on real property," and hinted at relief in respect of the police, lunatics, and the Militia. On that occasion, Mr. Stuart Mill said one method deserved consideration—namely— That of placing a certain proportion of some of these burdens on the general taxation of the country; for when this was done in the way of a fixed proportion it did not destroy, although it might weaken, those motives to economical legislation which so strongly recommended making these expenses local rather than general."—(3 Hansard, [192] 154.) His Motion was withdrawn. The hon. Member for South Devon subsequently, on March 23rd, 1869, moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the present amount, incidence, and effect of local taxation; and the present Prime Minister then said that the question stood in a very forward condition in reference to its claims upon the attention of the Government; and he added, that if the great Constitutional question of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church were once fairly disposed of, he thought that it would be the duty of the Government to make such proposals with regard to it as they thought were called for. The Irish Church had gone, and the Irish land had gone with it; nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government had not yet attempted to deal with this question. On February 21st, 1870, a Motion was made by the right hon. Member for Ripon for the appointment of a Select Committee with the limited object of inquiring whether these burdens should not be divided between the owners and the occupiers. On that occasion, the hon. Member for South Devon moved as an Amendment that any steps in that direction should be postponed until the Government had introduced their promised measure for dealing with the incidence of local taxation. The Amendment, however, was rejected, and the Committee was appointed. On February 28th, 1871, the hon. Member for South Devon made another proposal for inquiry into the incidence of Imperial as well as local taxation, when the Previous Question was carried. In that year a Bill was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) at the head of the Local Government Board. He thought they might gather from what befell that Bill, how little probability there was of bringing this question to an issue if it were to be hung up until another measure was carried dealing with the subject in a similar way. That Bill proposed a thorough reform of the system of local government. The parish was to be the unit, and the Bill provided for the appointment of a parish chairman. It contained, also, the very valuable provision that all the rates were to be consolidated into one rate. Further, it embodied the proposal that an estimate should be presented to the ratepayers at the commencement of the year, and, of course, it contained a proposal to divide the rate between owners and occupiers. Substantial relief was also to be given to the ratepayers in the shape of assigning to them the whole of the House Duty. At that time the duty was £1,200,000; but, upon inquiry, it appeared that something like one-half of the proposed relief would have gone to the Metropolis, and that very little indeed would have been left for the rural population. However, that Bill became law, and on April 16th, 1872, the question came up again on a Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon, who moved— That it is expedient to remedy the injustice of imposing taxation for national objects on one description of property only; and, therefore, that no legislation with reference to local taxation will be satisfactory which does not provide, either in whole or in part, for the relief of occupiers and owners in counties and boroughs for charges imposed on ratepayers for the administration of justice, police, and lunatics, the expenditure for such purposes being almost entirely independent of local control. That Motion was carried by a majority of 100 votes. In 1874,the present Prime Minister, in his address to his constituents, said that a further portion of the charge hitherto borne by real and immovable property should, with judicious accompanying arrangements, be placed upon property generally. It was a good proposal to go to the country with; but effect had not been given to that excellent suggestion. It served the right hon. Gentleman's purpose at the time of the Election; but it had served no useful purpose in legislation. Since that time no measure of very great importance had been carried in the House, excepting that contained in the Budget of the Government which succeeded the Liberal Government, upon which occasion a distinct remission of taxation, and a very sensible one so far as it went, was given to the local ratepayers. The grant to the police was then increased from one-fourth to one-half; there was a capitation grant made to the extent of 4s. per week on every pauper lunatic; and there was another equitable provision made—namely, that Government property should be rated, or at all events should pay, a sum of money equivalent to what the rates would be if it belonged to private individuals. Since then, by a Conservative Government, the whole cost of prisons had been removed from the rates and placed upon the taxes. In the present Parliament one or two Motions had been made on this subject, and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt) had succeeded in obtaining some remission in the form of a grant for roads. Deputations innumerable had waited upon Ministers in connection with this subject; the usual answers had been given, and they were not very much the better for what had been done, while the form in which relief had been given was condemned by many. He was not going to defend subventions; but he should have something to say furthur on with respect to the criticism upon them. He had already remarked that there was no Minister charged with the duty of securing economy in the administration of local affairs; but he must now refer to the action which had been taken by what he might term a Vigilance Committee—namely, the Local Taxation Committee. He believed that but for the existence of that Committee the local ratepayers would have been burdened with an intolerable amount of increased charges. The Committee was not in any sense a political body, and as, of course, it could not be maintained without funds it received subscriptions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It charged itself with the duty of impartially examining and reporting upon all measures involving increased charges on the ratepayers, and in the exercise of this useful function it had minutely considered 92 Bills which threatened to impose new or increased rates. It had arrested 73 of those Bills in their progress; 15 of them had been amended, owing to its action; and four only had become law. But one of those four—he referred to the Education Act—was a Bill which had already drained the pockets of the English ratepayers—excluding Scotch and Irish ratepayers—to an amount exceeding £10,000,000 in rates, while it had burdened the real property of the country with an outstanding debt amounting to £12,000,000. No doubt, the money had been well spent; but it was hardly fair that this enormous charge should be levied on one description of property alone. These local charges were felt most acutely by those who were least able to meet them—namely, the poorest class of tenants of houses in large towns. They also fell with great severity on the occupiers of land, who derived a very small return for their capital, and who, during the last seven or eight years, had not, generally speaking, except in the North of England, got any return for it at all. Yet they were charged with reference to the rent they paid, and not on their profits. The principle of assessing on the rent in the case of small tenements became a great injustice, and although the rate was gathered from the owner, it still fell on the tenant in the form of increased rent, with scarcely any modification. About 12 years ago the Birmingham Education Society made a Report of a house to house visitation, from which it appeared that in that town there were 10,000 parents receiving average wages just below a guinea a-week. Then-average house rent was 4s. a-week. The Local Taxation Returns for 1881 showed that in the Birmingham Unions a rate of 4s. in the pound was levied. Allowing one-fourth reduction to these small tenants, whose rate was paid by the owner, then each of these houses would have to pay 30s. yearly in respect to the poor rate, which was equivalent to 15 per cent on their rentals, or a direct income tax on their earnings of 6½d. in the pound. If they took the case of the rating of farms, it would be found that the rent was no measure of income, nor did it represent the intrinsic value of the land. Some of the poorest land in England commanded a rent nearly as high as the best, because the occupier had temporarily placed in the soil by means of his money and intellect an amount of fertility which was liable to be lost, and the application of which must necessarily be speculative. He was said, however, to have increased the value of the land, and consequently the Assessment Committee charged him on the improvements with increased rates. If these improvements were removed—and they would vanish in two years of scourging crops and unwise husbandry—the taxation would be less on the land. He maintained that the method of requiring Local Authorities to meet national charges was an unfair and a hard one on the occupiers of land; as hard as it was on the tenants of small houses in our great cities. He would call attention to one service required of the Local Authorities that was a national service—namely, the relief of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolver-hampton, speaking in 1867, pointed out that the charge for the poor was as much a national charge as the interest on the National Debt, and that it was perfectly right when we could fix a charge on the whole property of the country to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said— It seems to me that there is considerable injustice, and something like caprice, in saying that persons shall only he liable to contribute to the poor whose property is local and visible. That might be right when the Poor Law originated, because there was then little property that was not tangible; but I think it unjust, seeing how various are the descriptions of other property now held by individuals, that they should not contribute in proportion to that property to this national charge. I was acting on the original Commission appointed to inquire into the old Poor Law, and I was struck upon that inquiry by the extraordinary unfairness in which the charge for the poor fell in different parts of the country, and on different persons, and the vast number who, indeed, then were totally exempt from a charge which ought to fall on every man with the means of contributing to it."—(3 Hansard, [185] Appendix, p. 5.) He should be sorry, however, to have it understood that he was an advocate for one penny of public money passing from the Exchequer to the Local Authorities in aid of the out door relief. He would even go further, and say that the success of the measure of Lord Cranbrook, which dealt with the poor of the Metropolis and established a common fund to meet the charge for indoor relief, had been so remarkable and its operation so efficient that he should be glad to see the experiment tried of the extension of that principle to the counties. It would encourage Guardians to try indoor instead of outdoor relief, and it would be accompanied by a great reduction in the cost of pauperism. The charge for the maintenance of the poor in England and Wales amounted to £9,000,000, and there was received from the Exchequer, by way of aids or subventions, the sum of £600,000. There was a further service required of Local Authorities by the State, and that was with reference to pauper lunacy. The Local Authorities found the money, but had nothing to do with the administration. As far back as 1809 the Prime Minister assumed that the proper care and treatment of destitute lunatics was a national duty, and that the duty ought to be extended to the more costly treatment of these unhappy persons that had latterly been adopted; he proposed to devote some portion of the Irish Church Fund to that object, and he thus at once placed the cost of pauper lunatics among the category of charges that ought to receive State aid. The cost of maintaining pauper lunatics in England and Wales was £1,500,000, and the grant in aid was £500,000; therefore, the aid did not go far enough. It must be remembered that the condition of these unhappy persons was very different from what it was a generation or two ago. He could remember being taken by his father every Sunday to see a pauper lunatic secured by a chain attached to his leg, and his father urged him, if he grew up to see such a state of things continued, to do his best to get it altered. It had been changed, but at an enormous outlay, which fell on one description of property alone. Grants in aid of local taxes had risen from £624,000 in 1843 to £1,762,000 in 1863, and £6,000,000 this year. Among the objects of this relief was the Metropolitan Police; but as it was under the control of the Home Secretary, it ought to be said that the local ratepayers gave the State a subvention of the amount of this rate, instead of it being said that the ratepayers received a State subvention of £450,000. In the same way the Exchequer received a subvention from Ireland towards the cost of the Irish Police, which was a military force in everything but the name. In the six years immediately preceding the increase of the grant for the police, the increased expenditure in the counties upon the police was £29,000 yearly, and in the seven years following the doubled grant the increased cost averaged £21,000; so it could not be said that the increase of the subvention had promoted extravagance. Where the police cost £3,000,000, the State contributed £1,000,000. In all the subventions, which, in 1863, amounted only to £1,762,000, in the present year amounted to £6,000,000, a considerable proportion of which, as in the case of the Metropolitan Police and the Irish Constabulary, were only nominally subventions. As to the inequitable features of the question, he would point out that the incomes taxed under Income Tax assessment amounted to £51,500,000, derived from land, houses, railways, and other real property; while no less than £297,000,000 of unrated income was entirely free from liability to local rates. The Amendment referred to the postponement of relief for a measure of county government. It was suggested in the Speech from the Throne last Session, but no mention was made of it this Session. What was the reason for this change of attitude on the part of the Government? Instead of the desired scheme, there was the much more hopeless plan of reforming the Municipality of London. It appeared to him that the Government, after the demand of the Irish Members for local self-government, were determined to evade a question that in a manner touched the fringe of the great Home Rule problem. Did the hon. Member for South Northumberland know what his Amendment would mean if it were carried? It meant the re-arrangement of all the local areas in England, and re-construction of the whole form of local government, a question that could not possibly be settled in one year, or perhaps even in two. The real object of the Amendment was, he had no doubt, to postpone the consideration of the question, and to enable hon. Members on the other side of the House to tell their constituents that they "had not voted with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire because his demands were so extravagant, but had, in a more moderate spirit, voted for a complete reform of the whole system." He hoped that the House would not fancy that the difficulty could be met in that way. It was for the Government of the day to take the necessary measures, and he therefore begged right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to leave the matter in the hands of private Members. He should listen with great anxiety to what might fall from other hon. Members upon the subject; but the equities of the ease would not be met by any further postponement. Of that he was convinced, and on that he must insist, and he could only hope that the House would not shirk the points at issue by adopting an Amendment which meant nothing but uncertainty and further delay.

VISCOUNT EMLYN,

in rising to second the Motion, said, he would remind the House that in the course of last year's debate on this subject, the Prime Minister had apparently admitted that a case had been made out for the relief of the local taxpayers, and had justified his refusal to make an immediate grant only on the ground that the whole question must be dealt with by a large measure of reform, promising that on a future occasion the Government should deal with the matter. The Government had, in fact, pledged themselves to open the question—though it seemed to him to have been open long enough. What the country wanted was not a comprehensive measure of reform, but the relief of the taxpayers from an injustice that was year by year becoming less tolerable. That being so, he thought it was high time that the House should come to some definite resolution, and point out to Her Majesty's Government that the time had arrived when the question of local taxation should be considered. It might be asked, in the first place, whether the poor rate was really just, and whether it was imposed in accordance with the intention of the original Act? He thought that anyone who had looked into the matter would see that these local taxes were very unjust, and, he believed, were opposed to the intention of the original Act of Elizabeth under which it was laid down that the charge for the maintenance of the poor was not to fall upon real property alone, but upon other descriptions of property as well. If the original Act was not just, why was it not repealed? Simply because it was found to be just, and these burdens were now continued merely because it was found convenient to do so. Many cases had been tried arising out of that Act. In 1706, it was held that a farmer was not taxable for his stock-in-trade, but that a tradesman was so taxable. That decision was subsequently overruled, and the practical result of this and other cases was that personal property was now absolutely relieved of the duty of contributing to the poor rate, not by any permanent Statute, but by an Act passed for convenience sake annually from year to year. The original enactment had never been repealed, and it was consequently to be presumed to be just. Now, as for the best method of giving relief, he said the relief should be given to objects of national importance, so as to lead to economy and improved administration, and it should be given so that the country would gain something tangible over and above the actual sum in hard cash that was paid for it; and last, but not least, so as to benefit some class of the community most in need of it. Anyone considering the subject, and keeping these aims in view, would naturally be led to the consideration of the system of outdoor relief, and would, he thought, be led to the conclusion that in dealing with that system more good might be done, and more relief effectually given, than in dealing with any branch of local taxation. He would suggest, also, in order to induce the Government to say on what lines they meant to work, that a grant should be made from the Consolidated Fund towards some part of the cost of the maintenance of indoor poor. This was by no means a new idea, it having already been suggested by several authorities. The relief of the poor was an object of immense national importance. No one could dispute that who reflected upon the vast social considerations involved, the great harm that might be done by bad administration, and the great good that a better system of administration might produce. It was often urged that this proposal would lead to extravagance; but he had never heard that argument brought forward by those who had studied the question fully for any length of time. The whole tendency to extravagance was in giving outdoor relief, and if Guardians were discouraged in so doing, the result would be of great pecuniary advantage to the country, for reduction in outdoor relief meant reduction in pauperism. All the assistance given in aid of indoor relief must lead to diminished expenditure. It was a fallacy to suppose that indoor relief could ever lead to extravagant administration, nor would the adoption of the suggestion necessitate any additional centralization in the system of local government compared with that which at present existed. He claimed for the suggestion he had made that it would not require any delay at all in bringing it about. It would involve no fresh officialism, no new machinery, and the step thus taken in the direction of abolishing out-relief would be an enormous boon to the country. If they were to carry out a system of this kind, he believed that in a very few years they might, in addition to the £2,000,000 of which they would now relieve the taxpayer, effect a saving of another £2,000,000 in out-relief. The condition of the poor was better where the administration of the Poor Law was stringent than where it was lax. Representations had been lately made by friendly societies, showing how a lax administration of out-relief was undermining the good influences which those societies were trying to establish. One often heard it said that it was very hard that out-relief should not be given. But could it be maintained that in those Unions in which that kind of relief was dying out, the poor were not as well off as where it was scattered broadcast? As to the objection that this proposal I would lead to increased centralization,; he would like to ask whether anyone could tell him of any power which the Local Government Board would require to get if assistance was given towards the maintenance of the indoor poor, which that Board did not possess already? It was a curious fact that while the variation in the number of indoor paupers was only slightly affected by local circumstances and local administration, outdoor pauperism varied almost absolutely with such circumstances and such administration. The mean number of indoor paupers of all classes at one time between 1874 and 1879 varied about 13 per cent. During the same years the mean number of outdoor paupers varied 35 per cent. That showed the absolute necessity of coping with this great and gross evil, and that the Government would be wise in availing themselves now of the opportunity of doing so. There was no one who looked at the figures bearing upon the pauperism of London and of the country but would wish that the London system should be extended to the country. Between 1871 and 1881, over the whole of England, the cost of the maintenance of the indoor poor had increased 18 per cent, and the cost of the outdoor poor had decreased 24 per cent. In the Metropolis, where they had the Common Fund, the cost of in-maintenance during the same period had increased 26 per cent, and the cost of out-relief had decreased over 51 per cent. If they could have extended over the whole of England the same rate of decrease as was going on in the Metropolis, they should, between 1871 and 1881, have wiped off the pauper roll more than 100,000 paupers. According to the last Report, the ratio in all England of out-relief to the total of relief was a little over 59 per cent. The highest ratio was, he regretted to say, in the Principality of which his constituency (Carmarthenshire) formed a part, where it was over 83 per cent. He made that admission with shame. In the Metropolis it was only 20 per cent. Did not that point strongly in the direction that the system in London was good, and the system in the country bad? Would it not be wise, then, to adopt the Metropolitan system of relief, which had been found absolutely successful, and apply it to the whole of England? He was told that this diminution of relief was a hardship to the poor. But his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution could mention one Union where there was no out-relief at all; and could any one tell of any hardship in that district? It had been asked, if out-relief was such a bad thing, why not sweep it away altogether? They could not do that all at once, but must proceed by degrees. There was a move in that direction; but while they were waiting the great taint of hereditary pauperism was spreading all over the population, and leaving its mark behind in every direction. It was thought by many that the abolition of outdoor relief would be a great boon. It had been pointed out by the Local Government Board that the amount of outdoor relief did not represent more than 3d. per head per day. It was impossible to escape from the conclusion cither that we had a regular system of relief in aid of wages, or that the doles that were given were not sufficient to keep paupers from starvation, and thus more misery was caused by the smallness of the doles than would be caused by forcing every pauper wanting relief into the workhouse. Coming to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, he argued that the Government could not fail to oppose it, because it would absolutely pledge them to one certain course, the Government having always declined to tie their hands by the acceptance of an arbitrary Resolution. The Resolution of his hon. Friend, on the other hand, would, if accepted, leave the Government perfectly free. It only impressed upon Her Majesty's Ministers that what they stated would be done last year ought to be done at once. The Amendment contemplated delay, for it spoke of the introduction of a measure, and neither this Session nor during the next was there the slightest chance of the success of any comprehensive measure of reform. The country was sick of being told that it was to have comprehensive measures of reform. What it wanted was help. In conclusion, he expressed an earnest hope that the Government would deal with the question at once.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That no further delay should he allowed in granting adequate relief to ratepayers in Counties and Boroughs in respect of National services required of Local Authorities."—(Mr. Pell.)

MR. A. GREY

rose to move, as an Amendment— That this House, recognising the connection which must exist between the Reform of Local Taxation and that of Local Government, is of opinion that the relief granted to ratepayers in Counties and Boroughs should be by the transfer to Local Authorities of the Revenue proceeding from particular Taxes or portions of Taxes, and that a measure dealing with the whole question of local taxation and of local government is most urgently required. The hon. Member the Mover of the Resolution had imputed to him an intention of desiring to postpone legislation upon the subject of local taxation, because he had ventured to say in his Amendment that local government reform should accompany any measure for the reform of local taxation. He wished emphatically to repudiate any such intention. He assured the House that his Amendment was not proposed for the purpose of delay, or of diverting the attention of the House from the burdens under which real property was suffering, but in order to secure that the whole question of local government might speedily be dealt with on a broad, satisfactory, and comprehensive basis. The noble Lord opposite had taunted him for asserting in his Amendment that legislation on the subject of local taxation and local government was urgently required, when, in reality, there was no chance of immediate legislation. The noble Lord might, however, have taunted the Mover of the Resolution in exactly the same manner, because he had asked that measures of relief should be granted "without further delay." On the Ministerial side of the House it was conceded in respect of local taxation that real property was unduly burdened, and that legislation was urgently required, and if the present Parliament were to last its natural length, and the Government should not have solved the present question before its termination, Liberal candidates would have a less enthusiastic reception from their constituents at the next General Election, than they had had at the last. His object was, not to postpone the consideration of a measure of county government reform, but to insure the speedy passage of a measure of a broad and comprehensive character. If they should fill the pockets of the ratepayers by dealing with the question of taxation alone, might they not expect to find, when they should ask for a reform of local government, that all the reforming energy of Gentlemen opposite would have oozed out of the palms of their hands? While he accepted as a compliment the description of his Amendment as too clever to proceed from so young a hand, he assured the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) that he would have been nearer the truth if he had looked at it as representing the ingenuousness of youth, rather than the crafti- ness of a veteran schemer. The Amendment had nothing disingenuous or crafty about it whatever; it was only the simple expression of his honest belief that in order to secure the speedy passing of a complete measure of county government, it was absolutely necessary that a scheme for the reform of local taxation and local government should go together. The noble Lord made a speech which must be considered as extraordinary when made in support of the Resolution, because the object of his speech was to show that outdoor relief was bad, and that some step should be taken to induce Boards of Guardians to give indoor rather than outdoor relief. Every argument which the noble Lord used, could be used as strongly and effectively in support of a proposal to charge the costs of the indoor poor on the county rates, and not on the Consolidated Fund. He claimed the noble Lord as in reality a supporter of the Amendment, for the policy of the Amendment would be more likely than that of the Resolution to attain the objects aimed at by the noble Lord—for while it would give the Guardians the required inducement to give indoor rather than outdoor relief, it would have the great advantage of getting rid of the evil arising from the interference of officials in London with the local administration of the Poor Law. He had listened anxiously, but in vain, for a proposal from the hon. Member as to how he meant to grant local relief without delay. The hon. Member said that he did not wish his Resolution to be regarded as an attack on the Consolidated Fund; but the relief could only be given by grants out of the Consolidated Fund, so that the hon. Member was not quiet ingenuous in saying that he did not propose grants out of the Consolidated Fund, and, at the same time, declaring that they must get relief without further delay. There were three ways in which personal property might be called upon to contribute to the expenses of local government. 1. By the present plan of Treasury subventions in aid of particular rates. 2. By a policy of delegation to the central authority of powers which were now administered by local bodies; or, 3, by the allocation of certain taxes, or parts of taxes, to the local authorities. Now, there were obvious objections to the policy of subvention. It was impossible to receive Government pay without submitting to Government control, and control from London meant not only centralized administration but increased expenditure. Some people said that subventions in aid of particular rates did not reduce the motives for economy in local bodies. That was not the teaching of experience. It was only natural that if half the expenditure was supplied by an outside source, the precautions of local administrators against expenditure would not be so careful. No argument was so common in certain districts as the argument, "Never mind, Government pays half;" and not only was the fact of Treasury aid a cause of increased extravagance in local administration, but the Government control which accompanied Government subventions often caused expenditure which would not otherwise have been incurred. Members representing borough constituencies would bear him out in his assertion that the requirements of Police Inspectors and Lunacy Commissioners often necessitated large expenditure, which would never have been allowed or tolerated by the local authorities had they been left to themselves. The arguments against delegating to the Central Government powers now administered by local authorities were of the same character. The object of Parliament ought to be not to encourage the system of over-centralized administration, but to put matters on such a footing as would enable the Legislature to hand over, safely and without fear, the fullest possible powers of administration to local authorities. The policies of subvention and of delegation were bad, because they both involved an over-centralized administration and increased expenditure, and because they were both directly opposed to the principle of local self-government, which it was their object to promote. On the ground, then, that subvention and delegation were both wrong in principle and extravagant in practice, he hoped that the House would not support the Resolution moved by the hon. Member. But the objections that were fatal to a policy of relief by delegation or subvention, could not be used against a policy of relief by allocation. By allocating to local authorities certain taxes, or parts of taxes, contributed by personalty, they would obtain the desired relief to the ratepayers, without necessitating the evils of Government control and over-centralization. He would just name the taxes which were capable of being handed over to local authorities, if the House should so determine. The house duty, which last year gave at £1,700,000; the game and gun licences, £250,000; the dog licences, £350,000; the carriage licences, £550,000; the armorial bearings licences, £80,000; the drink licences, £1,800,000. He mentioned these taxes in order to show that if the Legislature determined upon the principle of allocation as a means of relief, there were several taxes yielding an aggregate amount of nearly £5,000,000, between which it would be possible to choose. He admitted that there were special arguments in favour of, and special objections against, the allocation of each one of these particular taxes which he had named. He would not weary the House by dwelling in detail on each tax. He would only say that when the House proceeded to discuss the allocation of particular taxes, one element in its consideration must be whether the revenue proceeding from certain taxes would or would not be increased by the handing over of those taxes to local authorities. The House Tax last year yielded, in round numbers, £1,700,000, of which £700,000 was supplied by London. He did not hesitate to say, that if this tax was handed over to local authorities, it would yield in extra-Metropolitan districts—he would not speak for London, as he did not know enough about it—nearly double the revenue which it at present supplied. There was an immense deal of jobbery in the assessment of rating for houses; and, in order to cure this jobbery, it would be necessary to have a big local authority responsible for assessments for all purposes, and with power to levy and appropriate the tax. There was no doubt also that the game, gun, and dog taxes would yield a much larger revenue if they were handed over to the local authority. It was notorious that these taxes, levied as they were by the Central Authority, were continually evaded. There was one great objection, however, which was common to the allocation of every one of those taxes, and that was that none of them could be allocated without interfering with the taxation of the country to an amount equal to the amount of revenue they at present supplied. There was another tax, however, which admitted of being allocated to which this objection did not apply, and that was the Income Tax. The Income Tax was properly a war tax; and some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House would be glad to see in the omission of the Income Tax altogether from the Imperial Revenue a security for the continuance of peace. A penny in the Income Tax yielded about £1,900,000. According to the last Finance Accounts, the proportion which real property contributed to the Income Tax was not £4,000,000 out of a total of £10,000,000. Considerably more than one-half of the Income Tax would represent the portion contributed by personal property. Now, that method of relief would be best which would most effectually secure these three results—first, the contribution of personal property to the expenses of local government; secondly, its contribution in such a manner as to interfere as little as possible with the National Revenue; and, thirdly, its contribution in such a manner as to make it worth the while of those who were taxed to busy themselves in promoting the efficiency and economy of local administration. Now, if the House should decide on utilizing the Income Tax for the purpose of making personalty contribute a share towards the expenses of local government, there were two ways in which it might proceed. The Central Authority might levy the additional amount required, and hand over to the various local authorities, according to some rule to be determined by the House, the amount to which each authority was entitled. The objection to that scheme was that it would not interest Income Tax-payers in the local affairs of their own district. There was another scheme, which appeared to him to be preferable, and that was that the Income Tax which was raised for the relief of local rates should be localized. He was aware that there were difficulties in the way of this method, but, he believed, no difficulties which could not be met and surmounted. The local authorities, when preparing their annual budget, would come to an estimate as to what the amount of their expenditure for the year would be. They would then issue precepts upon the rate collectors and Income Tax Commissioners, requiring them to levy the amounts which might be required from them respectively, according to some scale laid down by Parliament. By allowing the local authorities to call upon the Income Tax Commissioners to supply out of Income Tax levied within their district amounts equal to that required to defray the charge of certain rates, we should secure the objects at which we aimed—namely, relief to the ratepayers; non-interference with the National Revenue; protection to localities from London control; and, lastly, the directly interesting the Income Tax-payer in the affairs of local administration. Having endeavoured to show why the policy of allocation was preferable to that of subvention or delegation, and having admitted that it was desirable to call upon personal property to contribute, he would be asked, why not allocate the taxes immediately? His answer to that was that there were no authorities at present to which we could allocate them; and this fact showed, in his opinion, the urgent necessity that existed for the reform of local government; and the reform of local government was not only desirable because it was necessary in order to enable relief to the ratepayers to be given by way of allocation, but it was desirable also in itself; because there could be no doubt that by a reform which would bring about the simplification of areas and the consolidation of authorities, the number of establishments would be reduced and the number of officials diminished, and, consequently, a great saving in the expenditure would be effected, and a great relief to the ratepayers secured. A reform of local government would bring the best sort of relief that could be devised—namely, that relief which came from the reduction of expenditure. Their present system of local government was a positive disgrace. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) described it 12 years ago as a chaos of areas, a chaos of authorities, and a chaos of rates; and that statement, true in 1868, was equally true now. Owing to the confusion and complexity of the arrangements, which could not be dignified by the name of a system, a scandalous, because an unnecessary, burden was inflicted upon the ratepayers; and he hoped that the Government might be able, at the beginning of next Session, with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to pass a broad and comprehensive measure of local government reform. In an essay written by Mr. Phillips, and published by the Cobden Club, was a vivid description of the present state of things, and, with the permission of the House, he would quote— Chaos alone describes the present condition of local affairs. Complications exist where there should be uniformity. Districts overlap and interlace one another without order or reason. The burdens are imposed by diverse authorities; the duty of collecting is entrusted to a multitude of officials; while the administration of affairs and the expenditure of the money is entirely beyond the control of the authority which imposes the burden. The result of this confusion is that persons are unequally taxed, and that the ratepayer, puzzled by the multitude of taxes imposed upon him by so many authorities, is practically helpless, and incapable of taking an intelligent interest and exercising his due influence in the adminstration of the funds to which he has to contribute. That was a true and accurate description of the existing system of local government. For different purposes in the same locality, there were different authorities, who were elected at different times and in a different manner, and the areas over which their jurisdiction extended differed nearly all of them one from the other. Whether hon. Members looked at the date of election, the scale of voting, the tenure of office, the method of election, the qualification of candidates, or the area of jurisdiction, they would find that each separate authority had a different rule and a different method. That being the case, it was not surprising that the ratepayers were utterly unable to exercise any control over the expenditure of the rates. Owing to the confusion of present arrangements, they were compelled to see their money poured out through half-a-dozen different channels without being able to trace the processes which regulated the outflow. To improve this state of things it was absolutely necessary to pass measures of local government reform, which in place of the present haphazard system of overlapping areas and conflicting authorities, involving the ratepayers in much unnecessary expense, would establish a system under which boundaries would be coterminous, and the different powers at present exercised by so many different authorities, concentrated in the hands of single bodies which would be open to the pressure of the ratepayers, of which they should be fairly representative It had been said that the various Local Authorities in the Metropolis expended on their establishments a sum of something like £750,000, one-third of which—namely, £250,000—might be saved by the creation of one Municipality for the whole of London; and what was true of London was, to a large extent, true of the country. Great relief to the rates would result from broad measures of local government reform, and he trusted that the Government would take steps to carry the measures of which they stood so much in need; and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be led away by the hints of the hon. Gentleman, and of the noble Lord, that his Amendment was a dishonest Amendment, proposed to divert the attention of the House from the true point at issue, and that they would believe that he was as anxious as the hon. Gentleman himself to see passed, not only the reform of local government, but the reform of local taxation as well. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, recognising the connection which must exist between the Reform of Local Taxation and that of Local Government, is of opinion that the relief granted to ratepayers in Counties and Boroughs should be by the transfer to Local Authorities of the Revenue proceeding from particular Taxes or portions of Taxes, and that a measure dealing with the whole question of local taxation and of local government is most urgently required,"—(Mr. Albert Grey,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) had devoted the latter part of his speech to advocating some modification of the existing system of local self-government. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) also thought that some reform of local self-government was required; but, probably, his scheme would differ from that of the hon. Member. It appeared to him that his hon. Friend was inconsistent in two parts of his speech in dealing with the subject. One object which he had in moving his Amendment was to give the motive force to legislation, that motive force being the anxiety which owners of property had in diminishing the burdens of local taxation; but when he came to discuss the question of local taxation, one of the great arguments he used was that if local self-government were reformed, it would become a far cheaper machinery than it was at present. But if that were so, that motive force which he desired was now in existence. Then, when the Mover of the Resolution said the burden on the labourer and the artizan class would be lessened by any relief from the Imperial Exchequer, his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Grey) answered the argument by saying that the relief given to the lodger who paid rates would go in the end into the pockets of the landlord. Unquestionably, as time went on, the landlord might be expected to reap some of the benefit which was conferred on the ratepayer; but that was no argument against the justice of relieving the landlord. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) went further, and he believed that if they could remove from the small occupiers of lodgings in London and other great towns some of the burdens now imposed on them, they would be doing something to raise their permanent condition quite apart from anything they did to relieve the owner of real property. His hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland had complained that the Mover of the Resolution had not stated exactly in what direction the relief was to made. If he had listened to the speech of the Seconder of the Motion, he would have seen that they had a very specific plan. His hon. Friend complained also of the proposal in regard to indoor relief, and said it would lead to extravagance and centralization. But the noble Viscount who spoke from behind him (Viscount Emlyn) had shown that the whole system of indoor relief was as much centralized as it could be, and that it was not open to extravagant use. He could not doubt that the acceptance of the Amendment must be to defer, perhaps, for an indefinite time the particular relief now sought. The Motion did not require detailed statements to support it. Both sides were agreed as to the equity of their demands. The real controversy was as to the time when the redress should be effected. They said that the question was naturally and properly separable from that of local self-government; that it could be settled without reference to any other, and without bringing in a Bill, by the Government acting in their financial capacity. His hon. Friend wished them to wait for the Government measure; but they had no guarantee that the Government would carry out the measure they had proposed. He hoped the House would not be misled by the ingeniously-worded Amendment of his hon. Friend; but that they would, by assenting by a large majority to the original Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), do something to compel the Government to carry out the pledges they had so often made in vain.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

did not think the question was so simple as his hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed to suppose. In his opinion it could not be disposed of by a simple Resolution. A great many questions were involved in it. He was anxious to put before the House how it affected that portion of the community that bore the largest share of local taxation. He would ask them to refer to the figures given by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). He said that the total amount raised by local taxation was £32,500,000, of which£27,000,000 was raised by rates. Of this sum of £27,000,000, £5,500,000 was raised in London, £10,500,000 in municipal boroughs, £7,500,000 in mixed urban and rural districts, and only £3,500,000 in purely rural districts. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) wanted the House to see that this question of local taxation affected not only those who lived in rural districts, but they who lived in towns to a very great extent. The result of the last 10 years was not so gloomy as his hon. Friend supposed; for whereas, 10 years ago, local rates were 3s. 4d. in the pound, last year they were only 3s. 9¾d. in the pound. It was clear that boroughs had a material interest in this question. The fundamental principle to be got over was that of the area. The Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, pointed out the complication of the local areas. These areas were grossly unjust as regards the districts outside the municipal boroughs. As to the towns, the areas of the municipal boroughs were settled 50 years ago, long before the present state of things had sprung up. Speaking from his own knowledge of many large boroughs in the Kingdom, the facts with regard to them were these. As people in boroughs, whether manufacturers or merchants or professional men or tradesmen, made their money they moved outside the limits of the municipal boroughs, though they continued to make their income inside those limits, and so practically escaped all payment of rates. The first question requiring attention was the extension of the areas of municipal boroughs; and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would consider whether those areas might not be extended by Provisional Order, or some such mode of procedure, instead of by the expensive and almost prohibitory machinery of a Private Act. The last attempt that was made to deal with the question of assessment was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), when he proposed, in 1878, that there should be a uniform assessment throughout the Kingdom. At present, a 1s. rate in London represented 1s. in the pound, whereas in Lancashire it represented only 9d. in the pound. With regard to the relative incidence of rates on real and personal property, he entirely sympathized with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. Why should taxes be assessed on only one description of property, when the expenditure was for the benefit of all? Why should real property bear the whole burden of local taxation, while property that derived just as much benefit from the expenditure was exempt? This was a question which the Government of the day must be expected to grapple with, rather than amateur politicians. Outside the House Duty there were £3,500,000 of what were called licences and establishment taxes—that was to say, licences for carrying on businesses, and taxes for luxuries used in dwelling-houses. He should object to applying the House Duty in aid of local taxation; it was better to leave the House Duty alone, and deal with other taxes. The question was how relief was to be given. A large local expenditure had sprung up during the last 10 or 20 years, which was for the benefit of all classes and all kinds of property, but yet to which only one class and one description of property contributed. He called on the Government to remedy this injustice. Another question was that of apportioning between the owner and occupier the taxes that were levied on land or houses. The Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Ripon suggested that there should be direct and specific legislation, laying down what taxes ought to be borne by the owner, as owner, and what by the occupier, as occupier. In towns taxation was levied on the occupier for the benefit of the owner, which, if the expenditure was wisely laid out, would, in a comparatively few years, tend to improve the towns. The expenditure was made entirely at the cost of the occupier, although the owner had the real benefit of it. For instance, the owner of a ground-rent did nothing in the way of expenditure, which was thrown entirely on the occupier of the house, and at the end of the lease the owner reaped the exclusive benefit of that expenditure. The Committee recommended that local taxation should be assessed so that one-half should be paid by the owner and one-half by the occupier. With respect to the remarks that had been made as to the position of the Income Tax, he should like to point out the enormous increase in the assessments. The increase during the last 10 years upon personalty, as compared with the increase on real property during the same period, was very marked. The increase upon real property had been in 10 years £31,000,000 sterling, whereas the tax on earnings had increased to £486,000 odd. The Income Tax, under Schedule D, was between two and three times as much in the large towns of England as the assessment under Schedule A, which indicated that the earning power of the towns was in excess of its property value, something like two-thirds to one-third. If they were to have economy, the wisest course was to vote taxes in which Local Authorities would be interested in getting as much out of it as possible. If the Government gave a locality £50,000 towards the police, that would be spent upon police, outside police the town would have no interest in it; but if Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, or Leeds had a certain amount of taxation apportioned to them for local purposes, the whole economical power of the towns would be used to keep down the expenditure to its proper limits, in order to make the sum given by Parliament go as far as possible. He merely threw out these remarks by way of suggestions; and he would ask those who followed him to consider this question, not only with regard to its bearing on taxation and expenditure of the rural districts, but as bearing on the taxation and expenditure of the urban districts.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

Sir, as I have had a Motion on this subject on the Paper since the first day of the Session, and also gave Notice of a similar Resolution last year, I hope I may be allowed to make some observations on the subject to the House. The question is sufficiently large and complicated as it is; but it has been still more obscured by partizanship and misrepresentation. To-night, however, there does seem more consensus on the subject, and an evident desire, I think, to approach the question dispassionately on its merits, from its economic and equitable aspect. Now, I will not go over the history of this question, which has been ably stated by the hon. Member for Leicestershire; but I want to make it clear to the House why the ratepayers have exhausted their patience, and insist that to-night a vote shall be taken on the question, to see who is for us and who is against us. In 1869, after two or three former debates on the subject, the present Prime Minister declared that the question of local taxation was one of such pressing importance that as soon as the Irish Church legislation was cleared away, it required the immediate and urgent attention of the Government; but, although that is 14 years ago, no relief has been given by the Party now in power to the overburdened ratepayer, unless we except the small contribution to the roads, obtained by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire last year. In February, 1882, a deputation waited on the Prime Minister from the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and obtained from him a sort of undertaking that he would deal with it at once, and the subject occupied a prominent position in the Speech from the Throne, but no step was taken; and this year the subject is conspicuous by its absence both from the Speech from the Throne and the Budget. And that is not all, for though the Government pro- fess to be anxious to deal with the question, and acknowledge the justice of the case, yet they go down to their constituents in the country and use very different language. They say that "not only does real property not pay too much, but it does not pay enough." They say—"If you go and give any relief to local rates it will be quartering the landlords on the State." They say further—"If you give any relief to local taxation you will be relieving property at the cost of labour." This langurge, remember, is not used by irresponsible Members of the Party, but by right hon. Gentlemen, Members of the Cabinet. They have even used stronger and more unjust language, which I will not quote to-night, because I desire not to introduce partizanship, still less personality, into this question; but in the interests of my constituents, and the ratepayers generally, I am bound to state as much as this to explain why we now insist on this question being dealt with without further delay. We will not be juggled with any longer. And there is another point I must refer to here, because it seems to affect the question and to delay a settlement. There would appear among a certain section of hon. Members opposite a sort of blind hostility against landowners; I believe it not only to be blind, but unreasonable and ignorant. I believe, if those hon. Members knew how some landowners had poured out their substance like water in improving the condition of those about them—on principles wholly uncommercial—that is to say, giving their whole time and trouble, and receiving about 1 percent fortheiroutlay—if they realized this, their feeling of hostility would be changed into one of respect and admiration, and even of apology, for the language sometimes used. I do not attempt to discuss or combat that feeling; but under it, or with it, there is a fallacy which I must refer to presently. That is, that relief of local taxation is a landowner's question; it is essentially an occupier's question, as I will presently show—though the hon. Member for Wolverhampton has already, speaking as a Borough Member, exposed that fallacy. Sir, these are the reasons why the ratepayers have become rather sceptical of the sincerity of hon. Members opposite in their undertaking to afford this relief. Now, the amount of rates in boroughs is about 5s. in the pound—that is to say, a labouring man who is paying 4s. a-week for a wretched residence is taxed to the amount of 1s. per week for public rates. One of the most important subjects of the present day is the housing of the labouring population in our large towns, and especially London; it is a question of cost, and you will find the question of local taxation to be intimately bound up in it. I want to see that 1s. per week reduced to 6d., or less. The average amount of rates in agricultural districts, though nominally lower, falls really quite as severely. The amount is about 3s. in the pound; but as the farmer is assessed to rates on twice his estimated income, he is really paying an Income Tax of 6s. in the pound, and this at a time when, owing to the agricultural depression, he can hardly pay his way at all. Sir, looking at those simple facts and figures—and I will defy hon. Gentlemen to alter them by a penny—I say our long-suffering and patience under these burdens have been most unparalleled, and I could almost say with Warren Hastings—"I am amazed at our moderation." For just consider how these rates have come and grown. And first as regards the rates on the farmer. At the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws it was stated, both by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, that Free Trade must be accompanied by fair taxation; and Sir Robert Peel made some subventions in consequence, but no adequate relief has been given. Therefore, when hon. Members say that they!want to "look at the question as a whole," we must remind them that political Parties have been looking at it in that aspect for about 35 years, and that we are beginning to get rather impatient of being "looked at as a whole." These rates may be divided into three classes—that is, public or national rates, exclusive of what may be termed purely local or private, such as sewers, and paving, or bridges. There are the old rates for poor and roads, the modern rates for police and lunatics, and the new rates for education and public health. As regards the last, I will say at once I do not suggest any further relief from other or Imperial sources; only the incidence requires re-adjustment. The education rate should, as far as practicable, be divided between owner and occupier, and the sanitary rate should be limited to the property benefited. Now let us consider these other rates. The poor were, up to the time of the Reformation, maintained out of the tithes, which was, in fact, intended for them partly. I mean, of course, the great tithes now chiefly alienated. The 43 Elizabeth threw the charge on the general income of the parish, as is well known to all who have studied the subject, and now generally acknowledged. Put, after some confusion and numerous decisions as to the assessment of personalty, an Exemption Act was passed in 1840 for one year, and continues to be passed every year; but the original Act has never been repealed. Then in 1863 we had the Union Assessment Act, consequent on what is known as the close parish system; but some of the results of this were not then foreseen, especially as regards assessments of town and country ratepayers. However, the upshot has been that whereas originally the poor of a parish were maintained by the general income of the inhabitants according to their ability, now the poor of a whole Union are thrown upon one description of property in such parish; and a mineral or manufacturing district, producing great wealth, and also great pauperism and crime, may be coupled with a poor agricultural parish, which has to maintain that pauperism and police; but whereas the agricultural parish is assessed upon its whole income, the mineral parish is assessed at perhaps one-fourth of its income. Then as regards roads—I mean main roads. The first Statute on the subject is in the time of Philip and Mary, which directs the roads to be repaired by a species of "corvee"—that is, all the inhabitants are to bring horses, waggons, and labour to repair their roads. By a Statute of William and Mary, the charge was distinctly laid on real and personal property in the parish equally by way of rate; but even they could not maintain or make them, and turnpike trusts were invented, which have lasted to the present day, and have only been gradually dissolved. But while they existed the incidence of the rate has been altered, the law has been changed, and the unfortunate farmer, as the chief ratepayer in a rural parish, wakes up in his distress to find himself saddled with the whole cost, whilst he can prove almost to the fraction of a penny, by the amount of his tolls, that his user of the roads only amounted to one-third or one-fourth of what he is now called on to pay. The injustice of the present incidence of these rates has now been acknowledged by the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Roads in 1881, and the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1882. Then the charge for police, at first optional under the Act of 1839, and later compulsory, with a grant of one-fourth from the Treasury, was thrown on the rates during Protection between the years 1840 and 1846. The charge for lunatics was thrown on the rates in 1844, but has since then greatly increased, as would appear from the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, from intemperance. The injustice of these charges falling on real property was acknowledged in 1875 by the further grants from the Treasury made in that year. The cost of the indoor poor is about £2,000,000; the cost of lunatics about £2,000,000; the cost of main roads about £800,000. If one-half of each of these were given by the taxation of personalty, it would tend to considerable relief and better administration; but it should be given not by way of half the yearly expense, but by way of half a three years' average, and so much per head of the paupers, so that every penny the local administration could save would go to them, and not a half to the Imperial Exchequer. As regards the police—if certain licences—such as the public-house licence and the dog and gun licence—were handed to the local authority, they would amount to about £1,000,000, and a very small expense would then fall on the rates. These would amount altogether to about £3,500,000. I believe, if contributed in the way I have suggested, it would tend by better administration—seeing the example of London—to a saving of about half as much more, which would be a relief to ratepayers of something like £5,000,000 a-year. Now, seeing that the hon. Member for South Northumberland, whose Amendment the Government are going to support, suggested a sum of £7,000,000, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton proposed a sum of £5,000,000, I venture to think this amount a very moderate demand for the settlement of the question, especially when, as I will show presently, it need not be charged on the general Revenue of the country. Now, I do not know what arguments against this relief are going to be used to-night; but I would propose to answer by anticipation some that have been used, and some that certainly will be used, tonight. It is said that though real property is heavily burdened in rates, it escapes other taxation, and probate duty is cited. Well, that is the only tax land does escape; but look at what personalty escapes which the Statute originally intended should fall upon it. I have already referred to tithe, which, though it does not go to the State, is none the less a heavy tax on land only, especially the alienated tithe that was formerly given for the maintenance of the poor. But there is the land tax, formerly an Income Tax, levied on all property, a sort of subsidy, as may be seen by the original Act in the time of William and Mary. Personal property has slipped out of the taxation, and land, being more easy to tax, is all that remains of the old Income Tax. It is exactly as though you were to repeal all the Schedules of the Income Tax except Schedule A, and fixed that at 8d. in the pound. Then there is public prosecution in the office of Sheriff, formerly an office of profit, but now a very heavy burden on individuals. And then there is the Income Tax levied under Schedule A on the gross, and not on the net. So that land pays in tithes, rates, and land tax about 6s. or 7s. in the pound, besides the taxes that it bears in common with all other property, such as Income Tax. Then consider the great increase of personalty and population. Real property now only represents one-seventh of the general income, and only one-third of the income assessed to Income Tax. Then, Sir, I do not know whether we are to hear any more of the exploded fallacy that these are all hereditary burdens. I stated once before in this House, and I repeat to-night, that nearly all this taxation—at least, all we want taken off—has been put on during my lifetime, and mostly within my recollection. Hon. Members seem to think the Revenue in the Middle Ages was all derived from land taxation; but that is a great mistake. Moveables—that is, personalty—were still more heavily taxed—one-fifteenth, I think, of their capital, as I understand it—and we all remember the story of the Jew capitalist in King John's Reign, whose teeth were taken out at the rate of one a-day till he paid some tremendous subsidy. But we shall be told all subventions are wasteful. Now, if subventions are given in the right way they are not wasteful, and they may greatly promote efficiency. Look at the education grant. Can anyone say we should have got the poor children of this generation educated without it? It has brought out voluntary effort and promoted efficiency. Then the increase in the police costs is not greater since the grant in 1875 than before, rather less. As regards lunatics, there is no inducement—that is, no money inducement—for Boards of Guardians to send patients from workhouses to asylums, as I could show the House by the most accurate figures if necessary. But where the waste in relation to the Central and Local Authority is to be found is when the Central Authority orders the outlay, and the Local Authority has to pay it. I can mention half-a-dozen cases or more in my own county and immediate neighbourhood where unnecessary outlay has been imposed, or sought to be imposed, by the Central Authority. Now, I say, if they had had then to pay one-half, I am certain they would not have so acted. In any relief that is granted, I am entirely in favour of its being given so as to promote economy and sound administration; and it is because from practical experience I am persuaded that relief given in the form and manner I have suggested will tend to promote economy and better administration that I advocate it. But we are told any relief to local rates will only benefit the landowner. How? Just examine the shallowness of that argument, and then you will see that it is only another red herring drawn across the scent, to divert or to postpone their relief. The principal relief, both as regards numbers and amount, will be in the towns, as has been well set forth by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Nearly all property in towns is held on lease. Then how will the landowner or the ground-landlord benefit? I believe, if adequately given, it will greatly help the building of artizans' dwellings, which are now taxed 25 per cent. Do hon. Members think that any inducement to landowners to erect or give their land for erection of better buildings for the poor is an objection to giving them relief? or do they grudge any relief to the compound house-owner which will enable him to lower his rent? That is the only way it affects landowners in towns. Then in the country the labourer is living at such a low rent that the rate most unquestionably falls on him and not on the landlord. Then we come to the farmer. The minimum rate—say one-half—is perhaps on the property-owner, though, practically, it is never reckoned; but most unquestionably the rise and fall with which we are now concerned falls to the occupier. As a matter of fact, I believe these rates are all paid out of the margin of profit—that is, out of the farmers' or occupiers' profits. Just let the House consider these two or three typical cases, not exceptional, but actual and typical cases, that have come to my own knowledge. A farmer assessed at £800 a-year came and told me that he had had that year to pay in rates something over £100, which was all he had made that year. Now this rate was not a high one—under 3s. in the pound, which is the average. A clergyman assessed at £320, being all his professional income, was called on to pay in rates £80, or 5s. in the pound. There was a school board and a heavy road rate thrown upon them lately; the whole parish was ruined and going out of cultivation by it. A tenant farmer holding a lease in my county found his rates doubled chiefly by the highway rate, and he was called on to pay, in these depressed times, some £30 to £40 in excess of what he was taxed before, and by no means could he avoid it. Take another case. A labouring man saves £200 and wishes to buy a house and land. As soon as he invests in the house and land he is taxed 15 per cent on his savings, whereas while it was in the bank it was untaxed; and yet hon. Members who oppose this relief tell us that they want to encourage small investors in land. Well, so do I, and that is why I want to see this taxation re-adjusted. And then, in the face of all this, we are to be told that any such relief will be relieving property at the cost of labour. Why, its labour we are trying to get relieved in the first place; and surely it depends, in the second place, a little on where you obtain your taxation from to give this relief. I wish those who hold these shallow sophistries would go down to my constituency and preach that doctrine, because I think they would come back wiser men. Why, the average farmer is assessed on his labour at least as to one-half of his assessment, as anyone who would look at these things from a practical, economic view must know. I say do not tax labour through the occupation of houses and land which labour must occupy. Tax wealth, or waste, or speculation, or the causes of pauperism and crime; but, at all events, do not throw the whole burden on one-seventh of the income of the country. And now there is one consideration more, and that, I think, is the main consideration. Where is this money to come from? It has been somewhat superficially assumed to-night that by handing over certain local licences or taxes not paid to the Imperial Treasury you have settled the question as far as the finding the money. But it is clear that if you take£3,000,000 or £5,000,000, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton suggested, or £7,000,000, as the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) mentioned, you must supply the deficiency, and no attempt has been made to suggest or hint at the source from which that is to come. Sir, I hold that no individual Member, or still less a Party, is justified in criticizing a policy or any financial arrangement without suggesting an alternative; and I do not agree with those who can come here and urge that large sums should be given without, at least, suggesting where they are to come from. I am aware that it is for the Government to find the means if the House approves of the policy; it is the function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in fact, his limited office. Now, the source from which the money—say £3,000,000—should be drawn, ought to be personal property. I do not think you can assess personalty either under any of the Schedules of Income Tax or by a separate assessment; but there is a means of touching personalty in the shape of our enormous investments at the time of purchase of such investments. When a man buys, say, £1,000 worth of land, he pays a stamp duty of ½ per cent, that is £5, or about 1d. in the pound. That is a small tax, and not an unfair one. The cost that falls so heavy on the investor in land is the legal charge for title, &c, which varies in amount to about 6d. or 1s. in the pound. Now, when a man buys £1,000 of railway stock or other money investment, he likewise pays a stamp duty of ½ per cent, and a small charge for brokerage, say one-eight. Supposing the stamp were increased to 1 or 1½ per cent, it would not be a heavy tax. It would be almost imperceptible; and yet from figures which I have obtained it would produce a sum sufficient for this great relief. Even if it were made 2 per cent, it would only be 4d. in the pound, and a deduction might be made for small investments. What I would propose, therefore, and what I believe to be the best arrangement economically and administratively, would be this—that the Government should set apart or apportion certain taxes, say the house tax and some local licences, for the relief of local taxation, the former to be paid in subvention, the latter to be handed over as I have described, and the deficit should be made good by the tax upon personalty I have set forth. By that means the general Revenue or Consolidated Fund would never be touched; and if these subventions were to increase, the taxation of these objects should be increased likewise. I believe the handing over of all these taxes to the Local Authority would be wasteful and unjust, as the large towns would obtain nearly all the benefit. I fear I have detained the House at great length. It is impossible to discuss this subject without going into details, and some of them rather dry details; but it is a subject on which the country at large is greatly interested, and I am certain that this debate, and whatever may result from it, as well as the Division List, will be regarded with the most attentive concern by the nation at large.

MR. HENEAGE

remarked that, although he was quite ready to join in the approbation bestowed on the Local Taxation Committee, as far as the saving of rates was concerned, he could not agree with them in the principles which they had advocated. They seemed to have Consolidated Fund on the brain, and it was because they always advocated the principle of subventions that he had been unable to act with them. It was impossible for anyone who objected to subventions to vote for the Motion now before the House. It was perfectly true that the Mover of the Resolution did not advocate any such plan himself, for his sole argument seemed to be—relieve the rates and let local government reform take care of itself. It was also true that he advocated no plan whatsoever, and the only plan proposed was that of the noble Lord, his Seconder, who advocated that a subvention should be given towards indoor relief. He believed the House was pledged to deal with this question thoroughly. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), while attacking the present Government for not dealing with the question, had glossed over the neglect of the Party to which he belonged to effectually deal with it during the six years that they were in power. He was quite willing, however, to admit that neither Government had done what was necessary, and that while landed property had decreased in value the taxation upon it had largely increased. The occupants of the Ministerial Bench were pledged to deal with this question on the first opportunity; but speakers on the Opposition side were conveniently oblivious of the opportunities they had enjoyed of placing it on a more satisfactory basis. In truth, it had been neglected by both Front Benches. Hon. Members opposite appeared to say to the Government, if not exactly, "Your money or your life!" at all events, something very like it, for they said, "Only give us a subvention, and leave the County Government Bill to take care of itself." He concurred with them in pressing on the Government the necessity of having no unnecessary delay in dealing with this question; but he did not think it could take precedence of all other subjects, and, in particular, thought that the Agricultural Holdings Bill required to be disposed of first. It would probably be better that the cost of both lunatics and the police should be Imperial charges; but there would be no real relief to ratepayers, and no real economy, until we had a revision of the whole question of local rates. Subventions did not promote economy, and some were almost wasted in the ignorant interference of the Central Government in London, and the correspondence which took place between that Body and the Local Authority. In 1879, Lord Beaconsfield deprecated in the strongest manner subventions in aid of local rates from Imperial sources. The real way to deal with the excessive local expenditure was to have a good local government, and to draw as sharp and complete a line between Imperial taxes and Imperial objects, and local taxes and local objects, as was possible, leaving Local Authorities to control their own expenditure and obtain credit for their administrative ability. This being one of the most important questions brought before the constituencies in 1880, he pressed upon the Government the duty of dealing with it at the earliest possible moment; and he should, therefore, cordially support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

SIR MASSEY LOPES

said, that he had listened with much interest and attention to the able and exhaustive speech of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell); no one could deal more practically with the subject. He was both a large owner and a large occupier, and his Motion came opportunely after that of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) a few nights ago, when National Expenditure was discussed with reference only to Imperial outlay apart from local taxation, although it was obvious that both must be considered together in dealing with National Expenditure. Eleven years ago (1872) Parliament emphatically acknowledged the reality of the ratepayers' grievance. If some alteration of local burdens was just and necessary then, how much more urgent was it now? Agricultural industry was then comparatively prosperous; now, at no period had agriculture been so depressed, and fresh impositions had swallowed up all remissions and subventions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt exhaustively with Imperial taxation, but had entirely ignored local taxation; but, if they wanted to take a fair and accurate view of the Expenditure of the country, they must include, and could not dissociate, local and Imperial Expenditure. In comparing Imperial Expenditure in 1840 and 1882, he did not tell the House that local taxation, which was £8,000,000 in 1840, was now £27,000,000; and that while Imperial taxation had increased 40 per cent, local taxation had increased 230 per cent. Nor did he state that while the National Debt had been reduced, local debt had risen from £40,000,000 in 1872 to £142,000,000 now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke of subventions to local rates, which had increased between 1873 and 1874 by £3,000,000, whereas they had only increased by £2,052,000. He had said that the subventions in 1882 amounted to £6,000,000; but he (Sir Massey Lopes) said the subventions up to that time had not amounted to more than £2,150,000. Irish Police, which were included in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bad nothing whatever to do with subventions, and those only which were given in aid of certain local charges must be taken into account. Compare the fresh impositions of the last Liberal Government with the remissions made by the Conservative Administration. Education, £1,800,000; Highways, £500,000; Sanitary, £300,000; total, £2,600,000. Remissions for Prisons, Police, and Lunatics, total £1,450,000, so that the increase of rates since 1871 amounted to £1,150,000. This was not a Party question; but he was astounded when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) made the statement that the late Government made no remissions. He (Sir Massey Lopes) contended that all the fresh impositions since 1846—namely, Police, Lunatics, Highways, Education, and Sanitary, had been put on by Liberal Governments, and he asked any hon. Gentleman in the House to deny that statement. Even if rates had not increased absolutely, the burdens had increased relatively, on real property, with regard to the ability to contribute of other descriptions of property. If the increase which had taken place in the rates had fallen upon an industry which was fairly prospering, he should not have so much to say against it; but when it had come upon an industry which had never been so oppressed as at present, the augmentation was felt more severely. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told them it was much more easy to "collect rates than taxes," and that— The collection of Imperial taxation was always a matter of serious political delicacy and some difficulty, whereas the collection of taxes for local purposes was comparatively easy. But he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the difference between a rate and a tax, where one came out of one pocket and the other out of the other, and both out of the same pair of inexpressibles? It must be borne in mind that those who paid rates paid also their share of Imperial taxation, and their quota towards the remissions that had been given. Pates were an indirect income tax, or rent-charge, and wore unjust in their primary instance, because they ignored every gauge of ability, except that of rental, which was most delusive. They were levied totally irrespective of the benefits accruing to those who paid them, and were under no control as far as the ratepayers were concerned. Taxation for public purposes was certainly increasing, while the control was proportionately diminishing. It was most unjust and monstrous to act upon the same basis of assessable property as was acted upon some 300 years ago, when they knew that personalty had increased some seven or eight fold. Personal property was now only exempted by the annual Exemption Act—rates were not the only tax thus evaded, and thrown upon real property. Land tax in 1692 was not originally a special impost on land. Laud tax was intended to be a general income tax on all known sources of wealth; but personalty bad been formally exempted in 1833. He did not wish to weary the House with illustrations, but he would take the case of two men; one, the owner of £10,000 or £20,000, invested his money in Consols. He received an income from it, sure and certain, without any deduction—in fact, he was one of those who, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), "toil not, neither do they spin;" and, in regard to that remark, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if personal property had not been made by the sweat and toil of the poor man; and, if so, why it should not contribute to his wants and necessities? The other man, in his illustration, might have put his money in a farm and be doing some good to the community. He was a useful man, the other a totally selfish man. Both of them enjoyed the same protection, and yet the latter of them paid much more than his quota to those national obligations, while the other paid comparatively nothing. This was an unjust privilege, and an impolitic exemption. The pauper renting a £5 cottage frequently paid more towards these national obligations than the man receiving a large income from personalty. We were compelling paupers to maintain pauperism. He would say one word in regard to farmers, who were the only men, except clergymen, taxed for local purposes upon their incomes. Other persons were taxed, and paid only upon the premises which they occupied. The fund holder might live in a £50 house and might be deriving an income of £500 a-year, and yet Le only paid upon his house and not upon his £500 a-year. But a farmer, whoso rental might be £1,000, and who might be making only £500, would not pay upon the £500, but upon the £1,000. A 1s. rate on the man living in a £50 house was only 50s.; but to the farmer, assessed on £1,000, it was £50. As long as those interested in the land had exceptional privileges and exemptions they did not complain; but when the privileges and exemptions were taken away the removal of the exceptional obligations was forgotten. In these days of unlimited competition, handicapping of any kind was Protection; and to whatever amount the English farmer was taxed, to that amount was the foreigner protected. There was another grievance of which the tenant might complain. If the landlord or tenant chose to make any improvement, immediately the Assessment Committee came down upon him, and charged him at least 3s. or 4s. upon the annual value of his improvement. The system was different in Scotland and in Ireland. In Scotland they did not alter the assessment during the currency of a 21 years' lease; and in Ireland assessments had not been altered for something like 30 years, the same valuation still remaining. But when in England they made any improvement, down came the Assessment Committee immediately and rated them accordingly. That paralyzed all industry, and was enough to discourage any man from laying out money on the improvement of his land, or for the dwellings of the poor. He did not like to say a word in favour of the landlord, because it was not generally well received in that House. But this was not a question of persons, but of different kinds of property; and he did not see why the landlord was not to have justice meted out to him as well as anybody else. The right hon. Gentleman opposite some time ago described relief from local burdens as a "quartering of landlords upon the Exchequer." If the right hon. Gentleman had no consideration for landlords, had he any for yeomen, a very large body of men, the backbone of this country? Had he any consideration for freeholders, men who bought their own houses out of the money they had saved? Then there were the clergy, than whom there was no class more unfairly mulcted. He knew instances where the clergyman's income depended upon the land which he had not the capital or the knowledge to farm, and where he had been reduced to absolute poverty. The only reason why occupiers were so anxious for County Representative Boards was because they thought they would diminish the local burdens. It had been said that the remedy was for landlords to reduce their rents. Landlords had had a good deal of practical experience with regard to that. If they were continually investing their capital in the land, and receiving no return from the investment, was not that practically reducing their rents? The landlords had an enormous grievance in respect of the Income Tax. Under Schedule A they had positively to pay up to the hilt. He did not hesitate to say that they paid a great deal more than was right or reasonable. No allowance was made for repairs, for insurance, or for bad debts; and, therefore, their case was a very hard one. And now, one word with regard to the mode of relief. Provided the relief was real and substantial, local taxation reformers were not wedded to any particular mode or means by which the object might be attained. They did not ask for Protection; that was gone. They sacrificed it for the sake of the community. They did not ask Parliament to rate personal property; that would be impracticable, though it would be just. There were only three modes by which relief could be given. First, there were State subventions and contributions. He believed State contributions were just and defensible. There was a constitutional relationship between contribution and control. He proposed that mode in 1872, and it was adopted by the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman had a great prejudice against the plan on the ground that it was likely to lead to extravagance and centralization. But subventions had been given towards the charge for police and lunatics, and he defied anyone to prove that they had been productive either of extravagance or centralization. The expenditure upon the police had increased more in the three years before the subventions than in the three subsequent years. And when they talked of subventions leading to extravagance, who were they who were urging all this extravagance? It was the Government Departments. They it was who said—"Unless you carry out this or that improvement we will not recommend any further subventions;" and it was perfectly impossible to resist. Then there was another mode of relief—the transference of certain national charges from the local funds to the Imperial Exchequer. He should be very glad to see that carried out with respect to police and lunatics. He was prepared to prove that we had not only greater uniformity, but better discipline in our prisons, and had saved £100,000 a year by the proposal of 1874. It would be far better for the State to take these charges upon itself. Hon. Members who voted against that proposal had told him since that they did it with great regret. Then there was a third mode of relief—namely, the transference of certain local charges locally levied to meet some of those national obligations. He, for one, was perfectly indifferent as to which mode of relief the Government chose to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), some years ago, suggested a division of rates, but that would be no relief to their grievances; for the incidence of taxation would be precisely the same; it would only shift burdens from one shoulder to another, leaving them all chargeable to the same description of property. It would be no relief to the yeomen, the freeholders, or the clergy. He would not be sorry to see a division of rates, for the owners of land would then take more interest in the question. There was no greater advocate of local reform than himself; but the duties of local management were well performed by the magistrates, and he had never heard a complaint made against them for extravagance. Nine-tenths of the expenditure they made were statutory, and they could not do anything in the way of relief. Then classification of local and Imperial burdens had been talked of. He agreed that there should be an equalization of charges on all descriptions of property. There were many modes of dealing with the question; it was only for the Government to say that they intended to give some relief. The present control of the Local Authorities over the police and lunatics was simply a delusion. The magistrates had only a nominal control under the Home Office. If the Government took over the entire control of the police, he thought it would be found more economical and more efficient. The lunatics were under the charge of the Lunacy Commissioners. The humane system recently adopted had considerably increased the expenditure—the average cost of a lunatic was 10s., of a pauper 3s. With regard to education, when he brought forward his Motion in 1872, the cost was £70,000, whereas now it was £1,800,000. Last year the cost increased by £200,000, and it was still increasing. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that under no circumstances would the education rate exceed 3d.; but that amount had now been far exceeded, with the result that board schools, which were intended only for primary education, were now extended to higher and secondary education. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman that reform must precede relief; but he (Sir Massey Lopes) would assert emphatically that reform was not necessarily preliminary to relief. It was not the first time that a red herring had been drawn across their path, and that the Government had taken them off the scent, and diverted them from the real issue. They adopted the same tactics in 1872, when the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon proposed his Amendment. Though the original Motion was carried by an enormous majority, the Government entirely ignored the verdict of the House of Commons on that occasion. They had had continual promises; they had had the question put into Queen's Speeches continually; they had been told that the Bill had been prepared, and immediate legislation was promised; but nothing had been done, and they felt they were doomed to disappointment. The truth was, the Government were not in earnest. What was the issue to be decided? Was it reform? They all advocated reform. But the real question which they had to settle was, whether this relief was to be given to them without further delay, or whether it was to be indefinitely postponed. It was the question whether the Government were going to trifle with the subject any longer—whether they were to be allowed to shelve and to shunt it Session after Session, to dangle it before our eyes and then withdraw it; or whether the House of Commons would compel them to take up this question and deal with it without further delay. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland was carried, they would not advance a step—they would only give the Government a fresh lease of apathy and indifference; but, by accepting the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, the House of Commons would determine that the present indefensible anomaly, the glaring injustice, and the acknowledged grievance of taxing one class of the community and one description of property for national obligations should be speedily remedied and redressed.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that if his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) should succeed to-night in leading the House to pass his Amendment as the Resolution of the House, they would declare in these words that the "reform of Local Taxation was most urgently required;" and he hardly thought that the country would understand those words as meaning that the House had voted for indefinite delay, the argument of the hon. Baronet was that they ought to pass without Amendment any Resolution upon this subject that any hon. Member chose to submit to the House; because, if that was not the case, he could not understand why the hon. Baronet should tell them that no Amendment ought to be moved, for all he meant was that, provided substantial relief were immediately given, the Party opposite were perfectly indifferent as to the means they took to get it. It was because those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House were not perfectly indifferent to the means they took to get relief that they would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, instead of voting for the Resolution of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pell). Both the Resolution and the Amendment declared that this was not a matter for delay. The Resolution stated that no further delay should be allowed, and the Amendment said that a measure dealing with the subject was urgently required. While the Resolution was absolutely vague, and supported by speeches contradictory one to another, the Amendment was clear on the subject of the nature, or character, and the manner of the relief to be given. He had no fault to find with the speech of the hon. Baronet, who had, in past times, made this subject so peculiarly his own. The hon. Baronet had told them that there was no reason to suppose that the principle of subvention led either to centralization or to extravagance; and he gave them as an example, in proof of both of those statements, what had occurred with regard to lunatics and police. He argued by informing the House that there had been a more rapid increase of the expenditure on police before the subvention had been granted than there had been since. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had the figures before him, and they did not appear to bear out any such view. Well, the subvention as regards the police was largely increased in 1875. The increase in the cost of the county police before and after that time was as follows:—The cost in 1871 was £784,000; in 1872, £813,000; in 1873, £863,000; in 1874, £919,000; in 1875, £938,000; in 1876, £978,000; and in 1877, £1,000,000. As to the borough police, the cost was as follows:—In 1871, £503,000; in 1872, £540,000; in 1873, £582,000; in 1874, £613,000; in 1875, £649,000; in 1876, £703,000; and in 1877, £733,000. The increase was more rapid after the grant than before it. [Sir MASSEY LOPES: No.] The figures bearing on lunatics were also before him, and lunatics had been much more costly since the establishment of the subvention, for the subvention itself had increased with the most extraordinary rapidity. It had risen by rapid strides from £337,000 in 1876 to £412,000 in 1881. Now, the hon. Baronet argued that there was no increase in centralization through the granting of those subventions; but then, in the most contradictory phrase that followed almost immediately afterwards, he said the country was overrun with Inspectors, who insisted on their views being carried out on pain of losing the subvention. That seemed to him to be exactly the evil of centralization, which was one of the most pressing evils that required to be remedied. The hon. Baronet attacked the Inspectors of Constabulary, and, after stating that the control of the police was already in the hands of the Local Authorities, rather indicated that the Government should take over the whole control of the police of the country. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not think that view would meet with acceptance on the Liberal side of the House. There had been, perhaps, an undue amount of interference already with localities as regarded their police; but he did not believe that this evil would be remedied or done away with by transferring the control of the whole police of the country to the Home Office. There was one portion of the hon. Baronet's speech with which the Government found themselves in much more close agreement. The hon. Baronet declared, as the Mover of the Resolution declared, thereby making recantation of his former errors, that persons ought to contribute to local objects according to their ability and means. He agreed with the remarks of the hon. Baronet on that subject. There could be no doubt that persons ought to contribute to local objects according to their ability and means, and not only in respect of lands and houses. The principle was undoubtedly very difficult to apply, and the manner of applying it needed deep consideration. There was no difference, therefore, between them and the hon. Baronet as to the principle itself. The hon. Baronet stated in the course of his remarks—he was alluding specially at this time to the rates pressing on farmers and on lands—that the rates were rapidly increasing in this country. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet was present in the House during the very able speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but his hon. Friend showed that this was even more a towns' question than a rural question, and that the increase of rates had been more rapid in the towns than in the rural districts. He admitted at once and frankly to hon. Members opposite that it was difficult exactly to distinguish between urban and rural districts; but taking the utmost pains to discern which were rural and which were urban districts, or partly ural and partly urban, there was much reason to suppose that if they looked at the population, and if they looked at the rateable value, the rates were not increasing in the rural districts with anything like the rapidity asserted by the hon. Baronet. In proportion to the rateable value, he did not believe the rates were increasing in this country at the present time. One of the most interesting statements during the whole course of the evening was that made by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), whom he was sorry not to see then in his place. He feared that in his absence the House would hardly credit the statement he was now about to attribute to him, although he was sure that if the hon. Member was present his candour would lead him to admit it. The hon. Member told the House that this matter could be settled without a Bill — that it could be settled without a first, second, or third reading of any measure — by the mere action of the Government, acting in their financial capacity. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said nothing with regard to the Constitutional nature of that doctrine; but if any such sums as were contemplated by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwvn Leighton)— he stated £3,000,000 or £3,500,000—were to be given to the Local Authorities, new taxes would have to be levied to fill their place. The Mover of the Resolution, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, attacked the present system, and began his speech with the interesting recantation to which he had just alluded. He then told them that there was need for immediate relief; but he very bitterly attacked the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey), because, instead of speaking of a need of immediate relief, he said only that it was "most urgently required," a distinction with a difference which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) confessed he could hardly understand. Coming back to the remarks of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes), and the hon. Member for Hertford, he would remind the House that they had shown that what they wanted was immediate action by the Government, acting in their financial capacity, and without reference to local government. The Government, on the other hand, were quite content to accept the principle laid down in the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and thought if the question was to be dealt with with any fairness at all it must be dealt with in connection with the question of local government. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire did not remark that his hon. Friend had altered some words in his Amendment; and he could assure the hon. Member, as a matter coming within his own knowledge, that that alteration—which was, in his opinion, a great improvement in the Amendment —was not made at the request of those who sat on those Benches, but of those who had co-operated with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire himself. But if he might make a little free with a homely proverb, he would say that the proof of an Amendment was in the voting upon it; and if the Amendment was carried it would be found that the principle of the hon. Member the Mover of the Resolution had made considerable progress by the adoption of those words. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire attacked those who were responsible for the general arrangement of business between the Central and Local Authorities. He said that little resistance was given by any Department of the State with regard to local loans, and he spoke at considerable length as to the indebtedness of Local Bodies. Where loans were in the least doubtful, no Department could resist them more strenuously than the Local Government Board. But there were loans and loans, and Local Bodies and Local Bodies; and he did not think the hon. Member could have meant that a State Department ought to interfere with loans to large Municipalities, unless there were very substantial reasons for doing so. All he asked was that hon. Members should believe there were good loans as well as bad loans, and that doubtful loans were very carefully scrutinized. His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had spoken at some length on this subject, in which he, perhaps, had a personal interest, seeing that the borough of Wolverhampton had that very day contracted a loan for no less a sum than £600,000; but that loan would probably be for the permanent advantage of the town, and was an instance of a loan that could hardly be interfered with without depriving of self-government a Municipality that might be supposed to know its own interests. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire was not too consistent in his arguments. He had attacked the Manchester Loan, which was authorized by a Local Act, for which every Member of the House was in a certain sense responsible, and in the next few words of his speech he had found fault with the Government for over-controlling and interfering with Local Authorities. Indeed, all through the debate, hon. Members opposite had at one moment attacked, and at another advocated, the principle of centralization. He could not believe himself that centralization would be discouraged, but he thought it would rather be increased, by subventions. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had next attacked the Prime Minister for his declarations in 1874, the form of which he had, however, pronounced excellent, but had immediately afterwards used these extraordinary words—"Here we are, not much the better for all the millions that have been given to us." That was a most encouraging remark for a Minister to hear from an hon. Member who asked for £3,OOO,O0O more— the money, according to the hon. Member for Hertford, to be paid at once —"Here we are, not much the better for all the millions that have been given to us."

SIR MASSEY LOPES

Special impositions have been made, and deprived us of the benefit.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he did not believe that the special impositions in recent years had equalled the subventions, and in the case of the roads he might point out that a large subvention was given only last year. Speaking of the education rate, the main argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) was addressed to the inhabitants of the country; but that was a rate which fell most heavily upon those who dwelt in towns. The total of the school board rate was £1,484,000. Of that rate the Metropolis paid £577,000, and other municipal boroughs, £479,000 — that was to say, £1,056,000 was paid by London and the municipal towns, without speaking of the urban sanitary districts, out of a total rate of £1,484,000. Therefore, the House would see at once that, although there had been a large increase in the education rate of late years, it was a town grievance rather than a country grievance. The hon. Member next passed to the rate for poor relief. The House had been favoured that night with a great deal of the history of poor relief in regard to days long gone by. They were told that the relief of the poor was entirely a national duty, and not a local duty; but his own reading of the question in past days did not by any means confirm that view. Even the Act of Elizabeth, which had already been alluded to as being the foundation of all legislation upon the question, was not the first Act which dealt with the subject. On the contrary, it formed the last of a long series of Acts which dealt with the matter in the past, and the whole of these Acts of Parliament recognized the fact that the charge for the relief of the impotent poor was a local burden. The State interference with the Poor Law at the present time was only for the purpose of securing that the Poor Law should be properly discharged, and discharged in such a way as to protect the locality as well as to protect the country generally from the pauperizing influences which would necessarily result if the relief were given without regulation of any kind. But no such Departmental interference with the nature of the poor rates would give a direct claim for State aid. It was simply a question of prudence and wisdom to be discussed on its own merits, and there was no question of absolute obligation on the part of the State. It was only in regard to one branch of the matter connected with the administration of the Poor Law in such points as the salaries of workhouse teachers and medical officers, that a consideration came into view which did not apply to the poor rate generally— namely, the efficiency of the persons employed. The State was able directly to test the efficiency of the persons employed as teachers, by an examination of the teachers themselves, and of the children under instruction in the workhouse schools. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) next came to the question of police and lunatics. But, before he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) proceeded with that question, he wished to say that he agreed with the hon. Member, although he did not agree with the noble Viscount who seconded the Motion, that the Government scheme ought to include a proposal that some portion of the poor relief should be made an Imperial charge. The noble Viscount who seconded the Motion seemed to take a different view from that of the Mover. When the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was addressing the House, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) made a remark to an hon. Member sitting next him on that subject, no told his hon. Friend that upon that matter the Mover and Seconder of the Motion were not in accord with each other, and that was still his opinion. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) then proceeded to discuss the question of lunatics and of the police. The noble Viscount who seconded the Motion and the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) contended that a large portion of the rates wore required for national and Imperial purposes. But, although in one sense the police rate might have an Imperial object, it must be admitted that the Local Authorities had a great deal more control in increasing or decreasing the expenditure, than had been acknowledged. For instance, in the case of salaries alone they had a very considerable amount of power in raising or decreasing the expenditure. The proposal to cast upon the State the whole charge of the police he had already alluded to. He believed it would lead to centralization, and to the paralysis of local authority. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear hear!] He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had himself had the charge of this question under the late Government, agreed with him; and he would, therefore, say no more upon the matter. In regard to lunatics, he thought if the whole charge of lunatics fell on the State all motive for economy would cease, and it would be found that a large number of paupers would suddenly become lunatics. [A laugh.] Hon. Members opposite laughed; but he could assure them that many of the workhouse inmates were weak-minded, and that, especially among the old and infirm people, there was a considerable number in a condition of mind which amounted to semi-imbecility; and nobody would deny that it would be very easy to class under the head of lunatics a large number of persons who, at the present moment, were simply looked upon as harmless and imbecile poor. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) had gone a great deal further than other Members on either side of the House, when he pro- tested altogether against some of these matters being left in the control of the Local Authorities, in the event of a large measure of Local Government being carried.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the object of his remarks.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had taken down the words of the hon. Member; and he understood him to say that they would surely never think of giving the control of the police, for instance, to any elected body. The hon. Member was at the time speaking of the county districts. It must be recollected that if the country had to bear all the charge of the police, then, he humbly submitted, all the case for their control by the Local Authority was entirely destroyed. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) attacked the statement published in the Estimates with regard to the amount of the subventions, and it had been pointed out that the cost of the London Police fell partly upon one of those subventions. It had already been explained to the House that the present Government were not responsible for that statement; and without going into the question, either one way or the other, as to its perfect accuracy, he would say at once that it was almost impossible to accurately distinguish in these matters between what were called Imperial and what were called local charges, and to state what was and what was not a subvention. The table was one which was not entirely a table of what might be called subventions. It also spoke of charges which had been transferred from local to Imperial funds. It was, therefore, a double table, made up of two distinct things. However, such as it was, it was a table framed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) when the late Government were in Office; and he was, therefore, sorry to hear hon. Members opposite attack that table, and accuse the Government of charging the contribution towards the payment of the London Police as a subvention for which they were responsible. The right hon. Gentleman, who was himself a Metropolitan Member, was responsible for the form the table assumed. Strictly and literally, the table was correct in terms; but he admitted that it was misleading, and that it might give rise to a false construction. Perhaps, hereafter, it would be desirable to frame it in a different form; although, at the same time, it was strictly accurate in terms, because it was a table of grants in aid of local taxation, and of charges transferred from local funds. He thought that all the matters mentioned in it came under the one head or the other. The table, however, did not mention educational payments by the State at all, nor reformatories, and there were several other matters which might be specified. But, as he had already stated, no amount of responsibility in connection with that table fell upon the present Government. He desired now to return for a moment to the speech of the noble Viscount who seconded the Motion. He thought the first part of that speech was a most admirable statement of the principles which ought to prevail in regard to indoor as a contrast with outdoor relief. All who had considered that question would entirely concur with that part of the noble Viscount's remarks; but the controversial part of the speech had been excellently answered by his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey). It was not necessary, therefore, that he should take up the time of the House by referring further to it. As he had already pointed out to the House, the noble Viscount and the Mover of the Resolution were, not in agreement upon this question. He admitted, with the noble Viscount, that if the principle were granted, for the sake of argument, that subventions were to be extended, he had made out a strong case for its extension to the particular class of objects referred to; but the point on which he joined issue was that he did not think they were matters for which Local Authorities required aid. Subventions, as a general rule, would more greatly benefit the towns than the rural ratepayers. He concurred with the noble Viscount in what fell from him as to the success of the Common Poor Fund in the Metropolis, the initiation of which, so far as regarded the charge for indoor relief, was due to his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). No doubt the success of that Common Poor Fund had given powerful support to the doctrine placed before the House that night in the Resolution, that a portion of the charge for indoor relief should be a common charge upon the county. But he did not think that the argument could be pushed further than the county, and it did not form an argument for placing these charges on the country as a whole. He would make this qualification in his remarks—that although he admitted that the London experiment had an immense bearing on the question, it must not be supposed that the decrease of outdoor relief was entirely confined to London, as the result of that experiment. He thought his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would admit that this was true; because, in the township of Manchester, for instance, and some other places where there had been very excellent administration, there had been an extraordinary decrease in outdoor relief without any similar cause. He must, however, admit the admirable working in London of the Common Poor Fund. The noble Viscount concluded, by saying that unless they on that side of the House knew their own minds it was impossible they could support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland. He believed they intended to support that Amendment, because they thought they did all know their own minds. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and the hon. Member for South Northumberland, had pointed out the terrible conflict of jurisdiction which existed at the present time, and the pressing need of legislation to remedy that state of things. His hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland drew attention to the bearing of the money question raised by the Resolution. For instance, how was it possible for a ratepayer who lived in five or six different districts rated for five or six different purposes, to promote economy, even if he were so minded? He was under a number of different rates for different areas, and each district might have contracted different loans for separate and distinct areas. Indeed, it was impossible for the ratepayer to inform himself as to the position in which he actually stood. It was by no means difficult for the same man to live in a Local Board district, a Vestry district, a Union district, a Burial district, a Quarter Session district, a School Board district, and a Highway Board district, each of which might be separate and distinct from the other. The mul- tiplication of elections for these various Boards was in itself a considerable cause both of confusion and of cost; and the multiplicity, not only of elections but also of polls, required for various purposes was in itself a serious matter of charge. A ratepayer was very often unable to obtain accurate information as to the position in which he stood. Indeed, the present system of local government was not only complicated in regard to those matters, and not suited to the present needs of the country, but was altogether behind the age. Her Majesty's Government, by accepting the Amendment now before the House, admitted the present need for reform in this respect. The Local Government Board itself was, he frankly acknowledged to the House, overwhelmed with matters of detail which ought to be relegated to the Local Authorities; and he, for one, would always help forward any movement which he thought would have for its result the transfer from the Department of such matters of detail as ought to be dealt with by the Local Authorities. He deprecated and deplored this perpetual interference with details; but it was rendered necessary under the present system. He could not but think that this necessity for interference was the result of the subventions which it was now proposed to extend by the Motion placed before the House that night. As to the remedy, he believed that any reform of county government, such as had been sometimes proposed, would not suffice; but they must reform local government throughout all its branches. He felt also that by reforming local government, not only in the counties, but also in its several branches for the first time, they would obtain a real security for the economy as well as the efficiency of local administration. If Her Majesty's Government were to agree that night to the Resolution, they would be understood as agreeing only to a demand for money, and nothing else but money. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had already explained it in that sense. It would, in spite of what fell from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes), be in direct contradiction to the result which the House arrived at a few nights ago on the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The House would clearly see, from what he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had already said, that the Government were already disposed to agree with the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him. Their position was that any measure for the reform of local taxation should make the same authority which was responsible for the taxation required, the authority for the whole cost, and that all the ratepayers should be represented upon the body which was to levy the rates. They were further of opinion that the relief to be granted to the taxpayers should be a relief granted to the Local Authority in the revenue received from taxation, and that it should be accompanied by a corresponding devolution of powers and duties. That was the policy which Her Majesty's Government placed before the House in contrast with the policy of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who contended that the matter should be dealt with by the action of the Government in their financial capacity. They did not believe that the subject of local administration could be dealt with in that manner; and they confidently supported the Amendment, believing that it would receive the approval of the majority of the House.

MR. SCLATER - BOOTH

said, he thought the House might feel a good deal exhausted after the interesting discussion which had taken place during the evening; and he, therefore, promised that his observations should be extremely short. Nevertheless, he thought it was only proper that he should make some observations on the subject, seeing that it was one in which he had taken very much interest when in Office under the late Government, part of his duty having been to administer the Department now in the able hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Gentleman had thrown his shield over the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey). It was a gallant act upon the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and the language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland might be very plausible and satisfactory if its illusory character had not been shown. Now, what was the language of the Amendment? It was the same language as that which had been used for the last 11 years by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whenever the subject had been brought under discussion. The House had always been told that the relief of the ratepayer must be preceded or accompanied by some comprehensive or drastic measure, which, however, had never yet been produced, of which they had never even seen the outline, and of which only towards the end of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman they had ever had the slightest indication. He would follow the observations of the right hon. Gentleman as they had been placed before the House. As regarded the system of subventions, he had said repeatedly that they were the only possible forms of relief that could be given to the ratepayers, and that the system had, to a large extent, mitigated his grievances, and to a still larger extent satisfied him that some attention was being paid to his demands. But he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) said, at the same time, that these subventions were never proposed as the best means of aiding local expenditure, but as being the only practicable form of dealing with the question. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that these subventions were not made by the levying of new taxes, which must inevitably be the means resorted to if the policy which the right hon. Gentleman now advocated were pursued; but they were met out of surplus Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said justly that if new taxes were to be handed over they would have to be supplemented by further taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said that the police subventions might have been the cause of increased expenditure; but he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would not enter into that question now. It must be remembered that this had been part and parcel of the police system from the beginning; and the augmentation of the police subvention, made in 1874, was only different in degree, and did not involve any new principle, but was of the kind which always accompanied the establishment of the police system from the first. Then as to the expenditure for lunatics, he entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the subvention had caused undue expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to notice the enormous extension of lunatic asylums in recent times. There was an asylum opened in Middlesex, within a year or two of the date of the first subvention, capable of containing 1,000 lunatics, all of whom would participate in the subvention. There had been other asylums opened in Lancashire and constructed within the same period. The contribution of the State was a small one; but it had had the effect of leaving a large margin of expenditure to fall upon the ratepayers, in addition to what they had to pay for the maintenance of lunatics as ordinary paupers in workhouses or workhouse schools. It was part of the policy of the Imperial Legislature to impose the obligation connected with the maintenance of lunatics upon the localities; and when the right hon. Gentleman said that the subventions would have the effect of adding to the number of asylums, and of increasing the practice of sending lunatics into asylums, the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the question of the construction of asylums was in the hands of one authority, whereas that of sending lunatics into the asylums was in the hands of another authority altogether. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated the centralization which accompanied the subvention system, and said that he wished to get rid of it by all the means in his power. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find it a very difficult task, and at variance with the economy of the new Poor Law system, which system depended very much for its satisfactory working upon the control of the Central Authority. Without that Central Authority the system of poor relief in the country would very greatly expand. Even now, notwithstanding the action of the Central Authority, enormous sums of money were spent in outdoor relief. What was it that the right hon. Gentleman proposed by way of a substitute? His proposal was the establishment of some new County Board, which was to take the place of the Local Government Board in exercising subvention and control. Now, unpopular as the control of the Local Government Board was, he ventured to say that the control of a County Board over the action of the Guardians of the Unions and of the Municipal Councils would be a great deal more unpopular. The right hon. Gentleman referred, with great gusto, to the principle of the division of rates between the owner and the occupier, and congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and his hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), upon their conversion to the nostrum of the division of rates. But the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to say that the Liberals had been talking about this division of rates for the last 10 or 12 years; but they had done nothing. But what did the late Government do? They acted upon that principle, and they imposed no new rate upon the ratepayers without accompanying it by a proposal for a division of the now rate between the owner and the occupier. He had himself passed the Eating Act, under which new contributions wore made towards local rates, which were to be charged one - half upon the owner and one-half upon the occupier. On the part of the late Government he had proposed to place a charge on the county rates in aid of the turnpike roads, and he divided it equally between the owner and the occupier. At whose instance was it that he was prevailed upon to give up that plan? It was at the instance of the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert), who spoke as an authority in connection with the county of Lancashire, one of the most important counties interested in the question. The hon. Gentleman said that it was not worth while to charge the rate between the owner and the occupier, and preferred that it should be charged upon the county rate. Finding that that was the feeling at that time, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) somewhat reluctantly withdrew his proposal. But the late Government were entirely of opinion that no new rate should be imposed without dividing it between the owner and occupier until the whole question of local taxation could be satisfactorily adjusted. Until that time arrived, and the new nostrum of the division of rates could have full effect given to it, he agreed that it would be a good thing to get the owners to take more interest in the management of the rates, and in that case they must have a greater share in the representation of the localities upon the Local Boards and the Boards of Guardians. That would only apply to new contracts, for no one had ever proposed that existing contracts between the owner and the occupier should be interfered with. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had been able to carry his plan a dozen years ago, one-half of the contracts in England at the present time would be going on the old plan of the occupier paying the whole of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle that personal property should be got at if it could be got at; and he was thankful for the admission which the right hon. Gentleman had made, looking upon it as a stand-point for future action. The right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length upon the observations which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had made in regard to the growth of rates generally, and especially as regarded the growth of the indebtedness of the localities. He agreed that it was almost a pity to import into the discussion a question which really was altogether away from it. This subject of the growth of local indebtedness lay altogether outside the present discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said with justice that great pressure was brought to bear from his Department against extending this system of borrowing, either in the ease of the smaller or of the higher Local Authorities; and it was entirely due to the action of the Department that the sums of money borrowed by the Local Authorities had been borrowed for comparatively limited periods. The hon. Member (Mr. Pell) seemed to forget the attention which had been paid to his suggestions in the last Parliament. The question was brought before the last Parliament on two or three occasions in connection with what was called the Local Budget; and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had pointed out on those occasions very clearly to the House that the indebtedness of the Local Authorities was owing to the action of Parliament itself, which had permitted the raising of enormous sums of money for undue periods almost amounting to perpetual annuities. He believed there were cases in which the Local Authorities had borrowed money for 80 or 100 years; but in nearly all those cases the loan was given under the sanction of an Act of Parliament; and it must be borne in mind that, in regard to all these charges, they were actually at this time in process of liquidation. The whole of the sum of £120,000,000 now owing was in process of liquidation year by year, which was more than could be said of the sums which were borrowed and expended for Imperial purposes. And now let them see what could be done to meet the really burning question—the question which caused so much feeling amongst the localities, especially in the rural districts—namely, the reduction of the charges which were for what were called Imperial services. It was contended by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that some alteration in the incidence of the charge between the owner and occupier might, to a great extent, be provided as a remedy for the difficulty. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had already pointed out the fallacy of that; but, as regarded the country districts, no doubt the question of the charge as between the owner and occupier of land was a very different thing from that which applied to house property. Who was to be considered the owner of a house in a town like London? Was it the ground landlord? the builder? the owner of the long lease? or the leaseholder from year to year? or were they to divide between those four persons the rate leviable upon the house in respect of the expenditure that was necessary for the comfort and convenience of the occupant? He thought that insuperable difficulties would attend a discussion in such a case. In the country it was very different. The question which agitated the farmer was this. He was rated, practically, in an inverse ratio to his income. His landlord was a rich man of large income, living in a house which might be rated at £100 or £200 a-year. The farmer himself was a man of comparatively small means; but, nevertheless, he was rated at from £500 to £000 a-year, according to the nature of his occupation. Now, that was an anomaly. It was said that the farmer acted only as the agent in advancing the rate due upon the land, which the landlord would otherwise have to pay. But still, as a matter of practice, in bad times there could be no question that this payment did come out of the pocket of the comparatively poor man under very distressing circumstances. Then it was said by the right hon. Gentleman that to relieve the occupier of land from the incidence of local rates would merely be to place money into the pockets of the landlords. That, as a mere politico-economic axiom, might be true. He had admitted it himself in the evidence which he had given before the Royal Agricultural Commission; but, in practice, it was not true in the circumstances in which they were now placed. The whole matter depended upon the turn of the market; and in times like the present, when the turn of the market was against the landlord, as regarded the letting of his farm, he was of opinion that it was utterly impossible for him to take advantage of any remission of local rates to the occupiers of the land. Perhaps, in the course of 20 or 30 years, when the present generation had passed away, it might be possible for some advantage to revert to the landlord from the remission of rates. As far as he could see, now, undoubtedly any such remission must go into the pocket of the occupier of the land, and he was the person most in question at the present moment. It might be true—and he thought it was true—that the amount of the rates in the agricultural and rural districts had not generally increased of late years. He made the right hon. Gentleman a present of that admission; but it must be recollected that the burden of the charge had not been felt until recent years, so that it was particularly at the present moment that some immediate relief was required. The condition of the agricultural interest was such that relief, however slight, would be appreciated and welcomed as a boon by a large and meritorious class of people. He could not say that he was altogether satisfied with any of the remedies for the present state of things in the agricultural districts which had been proposed that evening; but he did not consider that it was his business to advocate any particular remedy. With regard to assistance out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of indoor relief, that was a question upon which he had expressed his opinion at great length, and his views upon the matter were pretty well known. He should prefer not to have recourse to that form of relief, but would rather that it was given out of a rate similar to that which was well known as the general rate of the Metropolis. But how was that rate to be got? Before it could be got they must entirely destroy the existing Union areas, and must compel municipal authorities to contribute to the county rate, from which they were now free. These charges would be certain to be met with great indignation on the part of these powerful and important bodies, to say nothing of the heart-burning and annoyance which would be experienced before any great amount of relief would be felt. In regard to the indoor poor, therefore, he was of opinion that some relief might be given from Imperial resources, he would not say by way of subvention, but out of some Imperial tax. It was an easy thing to say—"We will not apply Imperial taxes to the remission of local taxation: but the difficulty remained, and had to be dealt with. The most obvious and, apparently, easy suggestion was that made by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) with respect to the House Tax, which appeared, primâ facie, to be the very tax for the purpose; but it was objected that the surrender of the House Tax in this way would have the effect of imposing an additional grievance upon the occupiers of houses in towns, where there was no complaint as to the incidence, but only as to the amount of taxation. With regard to roads, it was thought that some assistance should be given in respect of them from the Carriage Licence Duty. This matter had come before the late Government; but it was at the time found to be quite impossible to allocate the Carriage Licence Duty for the purpose. He hoped when they came to the scheme of the Government they would find something more satisfactory and more popular than had been suggested in the course of the debate; but he entreated the House to support the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and not be led away by the suggestion that relief of the kind proposed could not be given until the reform of all the local institutions of the country had been accomplished, an operation which must necessarily extend over a great length of time, and was in itself a matter of great difficulty and complication. He believed the only way the grievance of local taxation could be dealt with at present was by forcing it on the attention of the Government in a way that could not be misunderstood.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, in making a few observations on the question of local finance, he should bear in mind the lateness of the hour, confining them within the narrowest possible limits, and avoiding the ground travelled over by previous speakers. It seemed to him that in some respects the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) might remind the House of the Motion on the subject of economy with which they had dealt a short time ago—a Motion charming in the abstract, and commanding an extraordinary amount of Parliamentary support. The hon. Member called upon them to move in the direction of relieving the oppressed ratepayers. Now, hon. Members were all ratepayers, and the Representatives of ratepayers as well; and he was sure nothing was more dear to them, both as Representatives of their constituents and personally, than to be able, where it was possible, to relieve ratepayers of their burdens. But there was one circumstance that had been lost sight of a good deal in the course of the debate, and that was that ratepayers could not be relieved except by the imposition of additional burdens upon the taxpayers; and, accordingly, they had to ask themselves, in discussions of this kind, where were the funds to be found, and what were the imposts, by which the revenue was to be made that was to go to the relief of the ratepayers? And the next question they must ask themselves was, how would the new taxation to be raised affect those various classes of ratepayers, whom hon. Members opposite, and sometimes hon. Members on that side of the House, grouped together; but whose interests were vastly different, and whose claims on the attention of the House were of a totally different character? The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had done what had been often done before, and with charming frankness he said he did not wish to separate between the case of owners and occupiers, or between the owners and the occupiers in the country and the owners and occupiers in the towns, inasmuch as they all wished to come together and to approach Parliament with a joint grievance. But he thought that Parliament was well entitled to ask, when the owner and the occupier came together arm-in-arm to the Bar of that House, whether their cases were really on all fours, and whether the House, in its effort to do justice to the one, might not over-satisfy, or leave unsatisfied the claim of the other? He thought it could not be too strongly borne in mind that in these cases they must consider the interests of the various classes. They did not, of course, wish to set class against class; but they were bound, as representing not only ratepayers but taxpayers, rigidly to examine the claims of the various classes who came to them asking for relief. Now, there were five classes whose interests might be parallel, but were certainly not identical—namely, the owners in the country, the occupiers in the country, the owners of ground rents in the towns, the builders and owners of houses, and the occupiers of houses, and each of these classes stood upon a perfectly different footing. Each of them might be entitled to come to the House for relief; but their cases would not be of equal strength. He would illustrate his meaning by commenting on what had been said by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, with regard to the occupiers of houses in Birmingham. The hon. Member had drawn a picture of the amount of local rates paid by occupiers in Birmingham, and contrasted it with the amount of rent, stating that the amount of rate paid appeared to be enormous as compared with the amount of rent. But did the hon. Member mean to say, if the whole of the rates in Birmingham were remitted to-morrow, that all the relief would go to the occupiers of houses? Was it not certain that a large portion, possibly the largest portion, or it might be the whole, of that remission would go to the owners of houses, and not to the relief of the ratepayers, whose burdens they were all anxious to lighten? He ventured to regard these things as considerations which they were bound not to ignore. They could not simply come forward and say, as in the Motion before the House, that they wished to grant adequate relief to the ratepayers; they must ask themselves, when they came to grapple with the question, where was that relief to go to, and out of whose pockets would the money come from which that relief was to be given? Now, the noble Viscount who seconded the Motion (Viscount Emlyn) spoke of the relief to be given to real property; but this was a totally different question to that placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, who spoke of relief to ratepayers. He was delighted to hear that evening that the hon. Member, as well as other hon. Gentlemen opposite, had become converts to the principle of dividing rates between owners and occupiers, which he himself had recommended in 1871 on behalf of the Government of the day. It was perfectly certain, to his mind, that if that proposal had been accepted at the time, a great portion of the increased burden of local taxation which had fallen on the occupiers of agricultural land—certainly those holding from year to year—would have fallen on the owners. He thought the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would acknowledge that the owners were ratepayers but to a very slight extent. There was this great inconvenience in the discussion of this question, which was always presenting itself, that two classes of persons claimed that they were paying the same rate. The owners of property said that the burden fell upon them; but when they argued the matter in the House or out of it they said it fell upon the tenants and occupiers, knowing that the sympathy evoked on behalf of the tenant would support the ease for relief in the matter of rates which would ultimately go to the landlord. He wished to be perfectly fair to all classes, and he would admit to the full that if the landlords had a case in 1871 for a certain amount of relief from the burdens of local taxation, that case was stronger now. The landlords' rents had been reduced, and yet they had to continue to make full payments on property that was mortgaged, and the decrease of rent had fallen on the margin that came to them; the burden of local taxation had fallen on rents which had decreased to a very considerable extent; and, therefore, he repeated, that the claim of the owners of property was stronger now than it was in 1871. He made the further admission with regard to occupiers of houses and farms, that the education rate was a great additional burden upon them, and that, ultimately, a portion of that rate falling upon owners, the matter was one which Parliament could not fail to take into account in the arrangement of local taxation. But he thought the House would be unanimous in its opinion that they could not proceed with the re-adjustment of local taxation without looking as well to the incidence of Imperial taxation. They must see whether any class claiming relief in respect of local burdens was or was not in a favourable position with regard to Imperial taxation. Before the fall in rents and the increase in rates, it could not be denied that land in England was less burdened in regard to Imperial taxation than land in any other European country; and it appeared to him that if the matter had been considered during the course of legislation with regard to local taxation, it would have been found that real property had not borne that share of Imperial taxation, which, undoubtedly, would have fallen upon it but for the fact that it had to bear what were called the hereditary burdens upon it. He did not know to what extent hon. Gentlemen opposite admitted the existence of hereditary burdens upon land. [An hon. MEMBER: Not at all.] Well, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken, and would, at the same time, advise him not to push his denial too far. There were two theories which were possible. One was that in proportion as the personal wealth of the country increased, land ought to be relieved; the other theory was that land had always borne a certain amount of taxation, and it was an element which had been taken into consideration in the purchase and sale of estates during generations, that this constituted a regular charge urjon land. Without going at length into the subject, owing to the lateness of the hour, there were certain problems to be accurately and fully considered in dealing with the question of local burdens. In the first place, whom did they wish to relieve, and how would any measures they might take act upon the classes he had enumerated? How could they avoid, by any general tax, helping one of those classes too much who did not require help, and the other too little whom they would all like to assist? There was a proposal made by Her Majesty's Government in 1871 with regard to the House Tax; and in the debates upon it hon. Members opposite, as well as some hon. Members on that side of the House, were always prepared to admit and to urge that the case of the towns was as strong as that of the country, and when they examined the rates it was clear that the great increase had taken place in the towns. But when a proposal was made, based upon the fact which even hon. Members admitted, that the towns claimed most relief, and when the House Tax, which would have afforded relief, was offered them, hon. Gentlemen opposite said it was totally inadequate, because it did not assist the rural districts, which, by their own showing, had not the same grievance as the urban districts. He thought, with the Mover of the Amendment, that the best way of giving relief would be to hand over to the localities certain special taxes. But he was prepared to admit, with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that those taxes must be carefully examined, in order to see that some relief was given in every quarter where relief was required. Hon. Members, in advocating these remissions, would do well to consider how they were going to raise the money by which they were to meet this increased demand, because they might find that a very awkward question with regard to the taxation of real property might be raised simultaneously with the question of relief of local burdens. Now, with regard to the question of the money out of which the proposed charges were to be met, no single suggestion had, in the course of the debate, been made by hon. Members opposite. There was that convenient entity—if it was an entity at all —the Consolidated Fund. But this, after all, was only a certain Revenue raised by the taxation of various classes of the community, and the suggestion of going upon the Consolidated Fund was simply a euphony for putting taxes upon incomes, or upon commodities which it was now necessary to tax for Imperial purposes. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had said that the late Government had managed to find the money that was necessary by savings; but was it not possible that if this subvention had not boon paid some taxes would not have been remitted; and was it not clear that some of the taxes left in force were the sum which was handed over in the shape of a subvention for various purposes? Hon. Members opposite had, one and all, told the House how very little better off they were now that this subvention had been handed over to them. There was one other point in connection with this matter to which he attached an importance as great as, if not greater than, to that of which he had already spoken—namely, the question of taxation. There was another subject which was much more important, and that was how these questions affected the future in regard to centralization or decentralization— how far they affected the plans of the Government, and he trusted he might say the plans of the Liberal Party, with regard to future local self-government. He would venture to say to hon. Members opposite who had spoken of handing over the police or lunatics or the indoor poor altogether to the Central Government, was it wise to part with any portion of their local influence and local work for the sake of the cash that might be given in relief? That appeared to him to be a matter to which they ought to pay the greatest attention. He believed there was nothing that was pregnant with more good consequences in the future than that when they had established County Boards they would be able to give them every possible function, and relieve the Central Government, as far as they could, of a great deal of this work; and before a reform of that kind was carried out, it would not be wise to enact anything which should have the effect of handing over local functions to any Central Board. He thought he might say that it would not be Conservative to take a line of that kind. It was not Conservative to weaken all the local action of the country gentlemen, and, because they wished to reduce rates, to part with that influence which they had in managing local affairs. He did not believe that, on consideration, they would think it wise to hand over, as had been suggested, the whole of the police to a Central Authority. It would be entirely in conflict with the general movement which they had elected to follow; but he would go very much further. He should wish not only to refrain from transferring that portion of local work to Central Boards; on the contrary, he was anxious to see as much Imperial work transferred to County Boards as could be transferred; and he should be glad, by improved arrangements of finance, to see County Boards made far more masters of the situation, both financially and administratively, than they were at present. They must not minimize the future of these County Boards, as he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had done. Hon. Members opposite had taxed those on this side with having been lukewarm in giving relief to local burdens. He thought, however, they would be equally entitled to say that hon. Members opposite had been lukewarm in advocating and promoting these re- forms of local self-government, which they on this side thought far more essential in order to reduce local rates than any subvention or any premature financial action. Hon. Members opposite said those on this side wished for delay in this matter; and several hon. Members had said that by such Amendments as this they wished to delay such relief. There were many hon. Members on this side who represented occupiers in agricultural districts, as well as in towns, quite as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was because they were convinced that the matter must be treated as a great whole, and that they could not merely improve local finance and local administration. Through good repute and evil repute they had stood by this—that they must introduce local reform at the same time as they introduced local relief. What happened when hon. Members opposite were in Office? They got some of their subventions—a million or two were shovelled to them from the Consolidated Fund; and then there was the greatest lukewarmness shown with regard to the County Bill which the right hon. Gentleman opposite introduced, and which received but scant support. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) said he had continually urged that relief should be given in respect to national services required for local purposes. Now, what were national services? What was really local work, and what national work? Hon. Members opposite sometimes seemed to wish to extend their definition as if it were this—that whatever interested the nation was national work. But there was nothing local which, in that sense, was not national. The interests of the locality were the interests of the nation; but he would wish to invert the definition, and say all that was local work which admitted of being advantageously treated locally, and all that was national work which could not be treated locally. He would say that whatever work they could do locally well and fairly, it was best to do locally, in order to relieve the Central Authority, and, at the same time, to do that to which many attached the greatest importance—namely, to continue to excite more local interest in local affairs. Therefore, far from admitting, as hon. Members opposite continually urged, that they ought to look at these matters of administration and say, if they were national, then the nation should pay, they should look at them in this way— Can they be performed well locally, and, if so, let the locality perform them. That seemed to him to be a far sounder method than attempting to transfer every possible charge to the Consolidated Fund. He ventured to submit these considerations to the House; and he hoped hon. Members would not be led away by the idea that any particular service could be performed somewhat better or somewhat more cheaply by the Central Authority, in order to make a case for deciding that the Central Authority should take it in hand and pay for it. There was great danger of their being led away from the point of local administration, because, on the one hand, there was the temptation of relief to the ratepayers; and, on the other hand, there was some small administrative advantage. All the advantages, financial or administrative, would be gone if they sacrificed for that purpose any local activity which might be called into force. He hoped the House would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, who brought together the reform of local government and the reform of local taxation, and who put down his foot, as he hoped the House would, against simply giving relief, as it had been given in the past, in a manner which afforded little relief to those who desired such relief, but which struck at the basis of those principles of local self-government which he maintained ought to be upheld.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

At this hour of the night, and after the long and interesting debate which we have had, I feel it would not be right for me to intrude for any length of time on the attention of the House, and I shall certainly not go into the large questions that have been discussed in the course of this evening. But I do desire, before the House goes to a division, to point out what appears to me to be the question at issue between us on the present occasion. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland were an original Motion proposed by him, and brought forward for the purpose of calling attention to the important subject to which it relates, I, and I have no doubt many others, would have looked upon it as a Motion to quicken the zeal of the Government, and to promote the cause which, as has been truly said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), is a cause that in past times interested many who sat on that side of the House, as well as the large mass who sat on this side. If that had been the position of the case, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland had been the original Motion, I think we should have viewed it in that light. But we have to view it not as an original Motion, but as a Motion intended to meet, and in some way or other intended to overthrow, the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire comes forward to claim, on behalf of the ratepayers of the country, some measure of relief from taxation — from burdens which they consider inequitable and severe; and he tells us he brings forward his Motion now because of the great pressure to which the ratepayers are subjected. How is he met? He is met by the hon. Member for South Northumberland, speaking, as it would seem, in the interest, and on behalf of, a large body of Gentlemen opposite, by what I can only call a dilatory plea, against any immediate action. My hon. Friend is moved to the course he has taken by the fact that this Government, having been in Office for three years— or, rather, being in their third year of Office—have not produced—though we have heard a great deal of talk about it—some measure for the reform of County Government, or some possible suggestions for the relief of local burdens. Nothing definite or tangible has come from them; and the manner in which the subject was referred to in Her Majesty's Speech this Session gives us very little hope that it will be seriously taken in hand this Session. My hon. Friend comes forward, and though he is reproached for it, I think, on the contrary, he ought to have been approved of for the form in which he has put his Resolution, which simply calls on the Government to act in the matter, without attempting to prescribe the precise form in which they should begin to act. The hon. Member for South Northumberland then comes forward with what is a Motion for one of two things —either it is meant simply as a dilatory plea in order to shelter the Government from the reproach cast upon them by the necessity of bringing forward such a Motion as that of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire; or it is a proposal of something in the nature of a definite plan as a guide which is to be imposed by the House upon the Government in regard to their future action. I am bound to say I think that is going rather too far. It might be very proper to say this should be the line of action to be taken; it might be proper that the relief to be given should be given by the transfer of particular taxes; but that is a matter which ought to be recommended on the responsibility of the Government, and it ought to be recommended not in general phrases of that kind, but by some definite proposal which we could see and understand; because the use of this expression, "transfer of particular taxes," is one of the most delusive and ambiguous that I have ever heard. We heard a most extraordinary opinion on the subject from the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). He comes forward, speaking with an air of great logical precision, and says, while he denounces the taking of money from the Consolidated Fund, he is ready to agree to the transfer of a tax before it gets into the Fund. I want to know what is the difference? If the money is to be taken from the people to be taxed, what is the difference which the right hon. Gentleman makes the great fundamental difference in principle between arresting the money before it gets into the Exchequer, and taking it out afterwards? The right hon. Gentleman would have us assign some particular taxes. Well, but that is exactly where the great difficulty would arise. He would take money from the pockets of the people, just as he would take it from the Exchequer, when the whole of the Revenue is paid in; but he is not going to take it from the General Fund, but from some particular tax which is to be allocated for that purpose. But it would be extremely difficult to define any tax in such a way that it would produce exactly what was wanted in each particular county—neither more nor less; whereas the money coming to the Exchequer may be applied where it is wanted. The right hon. Gentleman seems to desire to go back to the time when particular taxa- tion was assigned for a particular purpose, instead of taking the Revenue as a whole, and applying it as a whole. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may have in his mind something very different. He may have in his mind the idea that, as a Local Authority has to raise the taxation, it ought to impose it. We should like to know if that is what he means, because serious questions would then be raised—questions that ought to be carefully considered. Such a proposal would not exactly harmonize with the Amendment which is moved by the hon. Member for South Northumberland; because what he speaks of is relief by the transfer to Local Authorities of the Revenue proceeding from particular taxation; he proposes that taxation ought still to be levied by Imperial authority, and still to be collected by Imperial machinery, and only handed over at that stage of the process. Now, I have drawn attention to that, because I think it is important that we should be put into possession of some plan rather more definite than the Government have yet ventured to give us. They are always ready enough to cry out and abuse any steps that we, on this side of the House, or that the late Government have taken in this matter. We have, at least, this to say. We may have been wrong in our views; but, at all events, we did try our best to put what we had promised into practice. Whether subventions are or are not the best way of dealing with the question, we have not yet been shown a better method. We have always been prepared to take into consideration any other and better means of giving relief. The hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) suggested to the late Government, and we accepted the suggestion, that there was another service to which assistance might be given, and given not by way of subvention, but by way of delegation—I think that was the word; that is a favourite word on the other side, and the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) used it as one of his alternatives—by the delegation of the service of the prisons to the State; and in that way great relief was given to the local ratepayers, and, at the same time, an administrative improvement was effected. We are most anxious that anything that is done in this way should be, as far as possible, an administrative improvement as well as a relief. We are told we must keep back this boon, however much we think the country is entitled to it; that we must keep it back as a means of inducing the House to adopt something the Government is going to propose with regard to local government. If what you propose is good it ought to be accepted on its own merits; and if it is not good you ought not to try to drive people to accept it. Let us have your scheme as soon as possible, and let us see what we are about, and do not throw it in our teeth that we have done nothing in this matter. I have no doubt the Government will, in due time, or when they have disposed of everything else, condescend to cast their eyes upon this question, which we think is a great one, and which, not long ago, some of their supporters thought was a great one. I could not help feeling a little sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), for it struck me that his speech must be very much like the speech he had been meditating making when he had the pleasure of asking leave to introduce the Bill for dealing with County Government. I thought the right hon. Gentleman made some very admirable observations as directed to such a point. I am afraid this matter stands very much as it has done for some time in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If there is anything that the present state of things reminds me of, it is of a scene in Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew. Katherina, the heroine, is very much reduced for want of food, and entreats the servant to give her something to eat—one thing is offered and then withdrawn; another thing is offered and withdrawn also; and at last it comes to beef and mustard. She jumps at the idea of beef and mustard, for it was a dish she loved to feed upon. The servant pointed out that the mustard was too hot, and then she would have the beef without the mustard. The servant insisted upon her having the mustard, or else he would give her no beef. She came to a conclusion which I think is a very proper one for us to arrive at in this matter of local taxation— Thou feed'st me with the very name of meat.

MR. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman complains that my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Grey) has proposed an Amendment which is in the nature of a dilatory plea, and says that it ought, on that ground, to be rejected by the House. I say there is no occasion for a dilatory plea in this instance. We have been told from the opposite Bench that there is a great zeal on that side of the House for a reform of local government; and we on this side of the House have never scrupled to confess that we deem it an essential condition of any satisfactory and comprehensive measure for the adjustment of local taxation. I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman was wise in provoking a comparison of the relations of the present and past Governments respectively to the subject of local taxation. It is perfectly true that we have been three years in Office, and it is also perfectly true that we have not introduced a Bill for the reform of local government. But, Sir, have we lost any opportunity for introducing and pushing forward such a Bill? What was the year, what was the Session, what was the period when there has been time to procure a proper discussion of such a Bill in this House? I should be very glad if I received a suggestion of such a time; but I received no suggestion. The House knows perfectly well that our first Session commenced late in the month of May, and that even of that Session a large portion was occupied with Irish affairs of the most urgent character; that our second Session was given up almost entirely to affairs connected with the condition of things in Ireland, such as was altogether without precedent; and that last year, when we had not scrupled to advise the delivery from the Throne of a Speech positively holding out the question of local government as a principal subject to engage the attention of Parliament, again imperative necessity, connected with the state of Ireland, intervened—[Laughter] —which may form a very fit subject for laughter in the view of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which they ought to know, if they do not know, did constitute demands of a kind that it was impossible to set aside, and did render it absolutely and notoriously beyond our power to submit this great and comprehensive subject to the consideration of the House in a practical form. Whether that was the case with the late Government I am not so sure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) says he is a zealous local government reformer. He sat through six years, and saw the opening of seven Sessions of Parliament with great patience upon this Bench, without ever giving the slightest indication of that eagerness to deal with this question which he now professes; and I am not aware that any great public exigency in Ireland or elsewhere, or any great works of legislation in this House, stood between the late Government and the most effective handling of the great subject of local government. In one case it has been inability and not want of will—inability through the irresistible pressure of more imperative demands— that has prevented us from what I will not hesitate to say would have been a redemption of the pledges we gave when, in addressing the constituencies of the country during the Election of 1880, we held up local government as a subject that ought to engage the practical attention of the present Parliament. Now, let us examine what force there is in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to urge, as an objection to the Amendment, that it is a dilatory plea. I say there is no question of a dilatory plea, except where there has been delay, and there has been no delay, unless more time has been appropriated otherwise which might have been given to the discussion of this matter. Let us see how we stand with regard to the Motion, and ascertain what it is the Motion does. In one respect it is perfectly plain. It calls for an immediate imposition of new taxes on the country. ["No!"] No! Then, what is the meaning of the declaration that there is to be no further delay in granting adequate relief to the ratepayer? No further delay, I presume, means an immediate measure of finance.

MR. PELL

Exchange of rates for taxes.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Gentleman again interrupts me without cause. I have said nothing in opposition to that; but some Friend of the hon. Gentleman contradicted me when I said what was meant was an immediate imposition of new taxes. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's authority for saying he does mean the imposition of new taxes on the country. That is perfectly plain, and I claim the protection of the hon. Gentleman against any further imprudent interruption. I think it would have been well if that admission, which is now made, had been made at the commencement of the debate. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no surplus in the Exchequer, yet he has made a considerable demand for money. I admit he has not told us what his demand is; but he says the relief is to be adequate. He has not told us what he considers an adequate relief; but one of his supporters, the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), who informed us that he is most moderate in his demands, speaks of £3,500,000 being necessary.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. An hon. Member opposite mentioned the sum of £5,000,000, and another the sum of £7,000,000; and I said that my demand was modest as compared with theirs.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Gentleman described himself as one eminently moderate in his demand, and the demand upon the Exchequer was a demand of £3,500,000. Then it is to be understood that at this moment—when the hon. Member himself and the whole House, I may say, have assented to the general plan of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have accepted a remission of the Income Tax to the amount of £2,500,000—it is at such a moment this demand is made, without the admission, which I think ought frankly to have been made, that it moans a total reversion of the steps you yourselves have taken in the last three weeks, for what is proposed is the introduction of a new financial plan for the year, and the imposition, whether through the augmentation or otherwise, of some millions of fresh taxation in the country. This is a matter which does not appear to have attracted the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), or of any one of the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House in support of the Motion. There was to be no delay; there was to be a reform of local government; there was to be plenty of money; but there was not the slightest hint, in any one of the speeches, that this money meant new taxation. Let us see what besides new taxation we find in the Motion. As I have said, it gives us no assistance in determining what is adequate relief. A Gentleman may raise his demands to whatever point he pleases, for no light is given us on the subject. I cannot understand on what principle it is possible for hon. Gentlemen who accepted a reduction of the Income Tax only a few nights ago to come down to the House now with a proposition which, if it means anything at all, means that that reduction must be retracted. But, Sir, beyond that, let it be understood we fundamentally object to this Motion, because it disconnects the subject of local taxation from the subject of local government. We do not find that responsibility, we do not find that unity, we do not find that security for the most economical methods of administration in the present diverse and chaotic methods, as they were once called by my right hon. Friend, by which local expenditure is conducted, which would induce and encourage us to take bold steps in advance towards the further re-adjustment of local charges, and the provision of that local government which, in our opinion, is an essential part of any plan. The Amendment has nothing whatever to do with driving anyone to accept local government for the sake of obtaining relief from local taxation; but it means that if large sums of money are to be collected by the Imperial Government for the purpose of aiding local expenditure, it is the duty of Parliament to see that the organs through which that expenditure is conducted are brought into a thoroughly efficient and satisfactory condition. Well, the Motion which thus disconnects the subject of local taxation from the subject of local government goes, in our opinion, directly to affirm that method of assisting local charges which is the very worst that can be conceived—I mean the method of subvention; and I think what we have heard to-night goes to confirm a good deal of our defection on this subject. One of the greatest objections I entertain to this method of subvention is founded on its tendency to promote centralization, the greatest of all evils, and the most menacing, in my opinion, to liberty with which the country can be threatened. And how has this been illustrated to-night? Why, the great advocate of this relief to local charges, I while denying that his system tended to the increase of centralization, has made in this House the unheard-of proposition that the whole management of the police of the country, the whole machinery for giving local security for life and property, should be handed over from the Local and Municipal Authorities and should be placed in the hands of the Central Executive Government. I am bound to say I do not believe that such a proposition would receive any general support, even from the opposite side of the House; but it is a fatal proof and demonstration of the tendency of this method of subvention to promote centralization, when the greatest advocate of the system produces the most extravagant proposal of centralization that ever has passed the lips of a Member of the House. Then, with regard to the economy of the question, the hon. Baronet denied that the present system tended to waste; but the hon. Baronet himself supplied the contradiction of his own assertion; because, as he stated, already the power over the police has, in a great degree, passed out of the hands of the Local Authorities, and the increased charges that have been incurred, and which we have seen taking place in so many parts of the country, since the system—the first system and not the second — of subvention was adopted, have resulted from the interference of the Central Government. We have heard it stated, with truth and justice, to-night, that much augmentation of expenses have been pressed, if not forced, on the Local Authorities, entailing increased burdens on the ratepayers as the effect of the system of subvention to which, unfortunately, some hon. Members seem so obstinately to lean. My first two objections are that these two systems tend to waste and centralization; but the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) has given Notice of a Motion in which he justly points out that it is all very well for the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to state the case of the English ratepayers, and also to have some sort of consciousness that there were also ratepayers in Scotland, but that this is essentially an English Motion, and the immediate effect of its adoption will be a total derangement of many principles of justice which require equal regard to the circumstances of the Three Kingdoms in a measure of this description. If you were to proceed to give a large relief to the English ratepayers to-day, and to say that the case of the Scotch and Irish ratepayers will bear delay, what does it come to? It comes to this—that these new taxes to provide funds in relief of rates are to be imposed at once on Scotland and Ireland in order that English ratepayers may derive the benefit.

MR. PELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him; perhaps he had not properly explained himself. He had not said anything to imply that the operation of his Motion was not intended to extend to the Three Kingdoms. His intention was quite the reverse; but he was obliged to argue the matter from an English point of view; because the statistics in reference to English taxation were clearer and more ready to hand than those relating to Ireland and Scotland.

MR. GLADSTONE

I make no complaint of the speech of the hon. Member, or of what he has now said; but I stated that his Motion is not a Motion which is adapted to the circumstances of Ireland; and anyone who reads the Motion will find that it was framed by a person who had not the case of Ireland in his contemplation. My point is that while, without any further delay, this measure of relief would affect one portion of the Three Kingdoms, the means of supplying it can only be provided by a taxation which would be borne by the whole of the Three Kingdoms. And there is a point which I trust those who sit on this side of the House will never forget in discussing this question, and one with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) is so well acquainted. The transfer of rating charge to the Exchequer, in whatever form it is done, is a question of a transfer from a fund supplied almost entirely by property to a fund supplied, in a very large degree, by labour. I am far from denying that the general contention on which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pell) proceeds has truth and justice on its side. We have never denied the principle that there is no call of justice to lay the supply of local wants exclusively on visible property; but this House ought not in the dark to set about to transfer clandestinely from time to time, and piecemeal to hand over to a fund largely supplied by the labour of the country, charges which ought to he on the property of the country. That is a contention of the greatest importance. Every time we place a grant in aid upon the Consolidated Fund we commit the offence of laying upon labour a very large proportion of the charge heretofore borne by property. I grant that the hon. Gentleman has in view the removal of an injustice; but that is no reason why we should commit another injustice. It has been admitted fairly enough by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), within the last half-hour, that, whatever may be its immediate effect, the ultimate object of the Motion is to benefit entirely, or almost entirely, the owners of visible property of the country. Can there be a more obvious deduction than the deduction which we draw—that it is our duty, in considering this great subject, to take into view the position in which the owners of realty stand now with respect to Imperial taxation, and to take care that you institute such a review of your system as shall enable you to do justice, in the first place, between the Three Kingdoms; in the second place, between the different descriptions of property; and, in the third place, between the different classes of the community? Every one of the principles I have stated is in danger from the continuance of a system of proceeding by subventions. These are the reasons which constitute for us very strong objections to the adoption of Motions of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are proposing something like a return to the barbarous system when particular taxes were raised with reference to particular outlay. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have in view something of a totally different character; and that is to prevent, what I do not think he will venture to deny, a course of injustice, if, under the name of relief to local taxation, you are going to lay upon labour a large portion of the charge now borne by property. ["Oh, oh!"] I am astonished at these manifestations of dissent. Is not a system of subventions a transfer from local rates to the Consolidated Fund? Is not the foundation of your grievance, as you yourselves tell us, that the local rates are raised from one description of property, and that one description of property ought not to bear the burden? And is it not also true that a very large portion of the Consolidated Fund is supplied, not by property, but by labour? These are elementary propositions, the utterance of which by me two minutes ago drew forth those inarticulate manifestations of dissent which have led me to give this demonstration. Therefore, I think I have shown that our objections to the Motion of the hon. Member are founded upon solid principles; and that it is not because we wish to escape from the settlement of this question that we decline to accept it. It is because we desire that our settlement shall be solid, and comprehensive, and just to the Three Kingdoms of Her Majesty, to the different descriptions of property, which we agree in principle should be subjected to charges of this kind in one form or another, and, above all, to the different classes of this great community.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

(who was received with loud cries of "Divide!") said, he had sat in his place many hours, whilst those Benches from which those sounds of impatience now arose were nearly empty, and had risen to address the House again and again, but had not succeeded in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. He claimed, at that hour, but a few minutes, and thanked the Prime Minister for having taken notice of his Amendment on the Paper of the day. The Imperial taxation of Ireland, as well as her local taxation, was increasing at a rate per cent, having regard to the means of both Islands, enormously greater than the rate of increase in Great Britain. He thought these were reasons which justified him in putting upon the Paper the Motion which stood in his name; but which, after the observations that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, he should not move, because the Prime Minister recognized the same principles as were contained in that Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 230: Majority 14.

MR. PELL

Sir, I have to report to you that a Vote has been given in mistake by an hon. Member who did not hear the Question put—namely, the noble Lord who sits for the borough of Chichester.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

Sir, I did not hear the Question put.

MR. SPEAKER

I must ask one of the Tellers for the "Noes" to come to the Table and say if he supports that statement.

MR. A. GREY

Sir, I have to report that I did not see the noble Lord.

MR. SPEAKER

I will now ask the noble Lord whether he heard the Question put?

LORD HENRY LENNOX

Sir, I did not hear the Question put.

MR. SPEAKER

I will then put the Question to the noble Lord.

Question again put.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the noble Lord record his Vote with the "Ayes" or with the "Noes"?

LORD HENRY LENNOX

With the Ayes, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER

directed the noble Lord's Vote to be added to the Ayes: — Ayes 217; Noes 229: Majority 12.

AYES.
Alexander, Colonel C. Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.
Allsopp, C. Chaplin, H.
Amherst, W. A. T. Christie, W. L.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Churchill, Lord R.
Aylmer, J. E. F. Clarke, E.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Clive, Col. hon. G. W.
Balfour, A. J. Colo, Viscount
Baring, T. C. Collins, T.
Barne, F. St. J. N. Compton, F.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Coope, O. E.
Bateson, Sir T. Corry, J. P.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H. Crichton, Viscount
Beach, W. W. B. Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.
Bective, Earl of Cubitt, rt. hon. G.
Bellingham, A. H. Daly, J.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Davenport, H. T.
Beresford, G. De la P. Davenport, W. B.
Biddell, W. Davies, W.
Birkbeck, E. Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.
Blackburne, Col. J. I. Dawnay, hon. G. C.
Boord, T. W. De Worms, Baron H.
Bourke, rt. hon. R. Dickson, Major A. G.
Brise, Colonel R. Digby, Col. hon. E.
Broadley, W. H. H. Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. Donaldson-Hudson, C.
Douglas, A. Akers-
Brooke, Lord Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Brooks, W. C. Eaton, H. W.
Brymer, W. E. Ecroyd, W. F.
Bulwer, J. R. Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Burghley, Lord Egerton, hon. A. F.
Burnaby, General E. S. Elcho, Lord
Buxton, Sir R. J. Elliot, G. W.
Callan, P. Estcourt, G S.
Cameron, D. Ewing, A. O.
Campbell, J. A. Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount Fellowes, W. H.
Filmer, Sir E. Mayne, T.
Finch, G. H. Miles, C. W.
Fletcher, Sir H. Mills, Sir C. H.
Floyer, J. Monckton, F.
Folkestone, Viscount Morgan, hon. F.
Forester, C. T. W. Moss, R.
Foster, W. H. Mulholland, J.
Fowler, R. N. Murray, C. J.
Fremantle, hon. T. F. Newdegate, C. N.
French-Brewster, R. A. B. Newport, Viscount
Nicholson, W. N.
Galway, Viscount Noel, rt. hon. G. J.
Gardner, R. Richardson- North, Colonel J. S.
Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
Garnier, J. C.
Gibson, rt. hon. E. Northcote, H. S.
Giffard, Sir H. S. O'Brien, W.
Giles, A. O'Connor, T. P.
Goldney, Sir G. O'Kelly, J.
Gore-Langton, W. S. Onslow, D. R.
Gorst, J. E. Paget, R. H.
Grantham, W. Peek, Sir H.
Gregory, G. B. Pemberton, E. L.
Halsey, T. F. Percy, Lord A.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. Phipps, C. N. P.
Phipps, P.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Hamilton, I. T. Power, R.
Harcourt, E. W. Price, Captain G. E.
Harvey, Sir R. B. Pugh, L. P.
Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D. Puleston, J. H.
Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Herbert, hon. S. Rankin, J.
Hicks, E. Rendlesham, Lord
Hildyard, T. B. T. Repton, G. W.
Hill, Lord A. W. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Hill, A. S. Rolls, J. A.
Holland, Sir H. T. Ross, C. C.
Home, Lt.-Col. D. M. Round, J.
Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B. St. Aubyn, W. M.
Johnstone, Sir F. Salt, T.
Kennard, Col. E. H. Schreiber, C.
Kennard, C. J. Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Kennaway, Sir J. H. Scott, Lord H.
Kenny, M.J. Scott, M. D.
Knight, F. W. Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Knightley, Sir R.
Lawrence, Sir T. Severne, J. E.
Leamy, E. Sexton, T.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H. Sheil, E.
Legh, W. J. Smith, A.
Leigh, R. Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Leighton, Sir B. Stanhope, hon. E.
Leighton, S. Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.
Lennox, Lord H. G. Stanley, E. J.
Lever, J. O. Sullivan, T. D.
Levett, T. J. Sykes, C.
Lewisham, Viscount Talbot, J. G.
Lindsay, Sir R. L. Thornhill, T.
Loder, R. Thynne, Lord H. F.
Long, W. H. Tollemache, hon. W. F.
Lopes, Sir M. Tollemache, H. J.
Lowther, rt. hon. J. Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Lowther, hon. W. Tottenham, A. L.
Mac Iver, D. Walrond, Col. W. H.
Macnaghten, E. Warburton, P. E.
M'Carthy, J. Warton, C. N.
M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J. Welby-Gregory, Sir W.
Makins, Colonel W. T. Whitley, E.
Manners, rt. hn. Ld. J. Williams, Gen. O.
March, Earl of Willyams, E. W. B.
Master, T. W. C. Wilmot, Sir H.
Maxwell, Sir H. E. Winn, R.
Wortley, C. B. Stuart- TELLERS.
Wroughton, P. Emlyn, Viscount
Wyndham, hon. P. Pell, A.
Yorke, J. R.
NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.
Agnew, W. Dillwyn, L. L.
Ainsworth, D. Dodds, J.
Allen, H. G. Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.
Armitage, B. Duckham, T.
Armitstead, G. Duff, R. W.
Arnold, A. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Asher, A. Edwards, H.
Ashley, hon. E. M. Edwards, P.
Baldwin, E. Egerton, Admiral hon. F.
Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.
Barclay, J. W. Evans, T. W.
Baring, Viscount Fairbairn, Sir A.
Barnes, A. Farquharson, Dr. R.
Barran, J. Ferguson, R.
Bass, Sir A. Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.
Bass, H. Findlater, W.
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Firth, J. F. B.
Biddulph, M. Fitzmaurice, Lord E.
Bolton, J. C. Flower, C.
Borlase, W. C. Forster, Sir C.
Brand, H. R. Fort, R.
Brassey, H. A. Fowler, H. H.
Brassey, Sir T. Fowler, W.
Brett, R. B. Fry, L.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Fry, T.
Brinton, J. Gabbett, D. F.
Broadhurst, H. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Brogden, A. Gladstone, H. J.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C. Gladstone, W. H.
Bruce, hon. R. P. Gordon, Sir A.
Buchanan, T. R. Gordon, Lord D.
Burt, T. Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Caine, W. S. Gourley, E. T.
Campbell, Lord C. Grant, Sir G. M.
Campbell, Sir G. Grant, A.
Campbell, R. F. F. Grant, D.
Campbell -Bannerman, H. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Gurdon, R. T.
Carbutt, E. H. Hamilton, J. G. C.
Carington, hon. R. Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.
Cartwright, W. C.
Causton, R. K. Hardcastle, J. A.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. Hartington, Marq. of
Cheetham, J. F. Hastings, G. W.
Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E. Hayter, Sir A. D.
Clarke, J. C. Henderson, F.
Clifford, C. C. Herschell, Sir F.
Cohen, A. Hibbert, J. T.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Holden, I.
Colthurst, Col. D. La T. Hollond, J. R.
Cotes, C. C. Holms, J.
Courtauld, G. Hopwood, C. H.
Courtney, L. H. Howard, E. S.
Cowen, J. Illingworth, A.
Cowper, hon. H. F. Inderwick, F. A.
Craig, W. Y. James, Sir H.
Cropper, J. Jenkins, Sir J. J.
Cross, J. K. Jenkins, D. J.
Crum, A. Kensington, Lord
Cunliffe, Sir R. A. Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.
Currie, Sir D. Labouchere, H.
Davey, H. Lambton, hon. F. W.
Davies, R. Lawson, Sir W.
Dickson, J. Lea, T.
Dickson, T. A. Leake, R.
Leatham, E. A. Robertson, H.
Leatham, W. H. Rogers, J. E. T.
Lee, H. Rothschild, Sir N. M. de
Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S. Roundell, C. S.
Leigh, hon. G. H. C. Russell, Lord A.
Lloyd, M. Russell, G. W. E.
Lubbock, Sir J. Rylands, P.
Lymington, Viscount Samuelson, H.
Lyons, R. D. Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Mackie, R. B. Sellar, A. C.
Macliver, P. S. Shaw, T.
M'Coan, J. C. Shaw, W.
M'Intyre, Æneas J. Sheridan, H. B.
M'Lagan, P. Shield, H.
M'Laren, C. B. B. Simon, Serjeant J.
Maitland, W. F. Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
Mappin, F. T. Slagg, J.
Marjoribanks, E. Smith, E.
Marriott, W. T. Smith, Lt.-Col. G.
Martin, R. B. Smith, S.
Maskelyne, M. H. Story- Spencer, hon. C. R.
Maxwell-Heron, J. Stanley, hon. E. L.
Monk, C. J. Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Moreton, Lord Stanton, W. J.
Morgan, rt. hn. G. O. Stewart, J.
Morley, A. Summers, W.
Noel, E. Tavistock, Marquess of
O'Beirne, Colonel F. Tennant, C.
Otway, Sir A. J. Thomasson, J. P.
Paget, T. T. Tillett, J. H.
Palmer, C. M. Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-
Palmer, G.
Palmer, J. H. Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Parker, C. S. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Pease, Sir J. W. Vivian, Sir H. H.
Pease, A. Waddy, S. D.
Peddie, J. D. Walter, J.
Pender, J. Waterlow, Sir S. H.
Pennington, F. Webster, J.
Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L. Whitbread, S.
Portman, hn. W. H. B. Wiggin, H.
Powell, W. R. H. Williams, S. C. E.
Power, J. O'C. Williamson, S.
Pulley, J. Willis, W.
Ralli, P. Wills, W. H.
Ramsay, J. Wilson, Sir M.
Ramsden, Sir J. Wilson, I.
Rathbone, W. Wodehouse, E. R.
Reed, Sir E. J. Woodall, W.
Reid, R. T. TELLERS.
Richardson, J. N. Grey, A. H. G.
Richardson, T. Heneage, E.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put. Resolved, That this House, recognising the connection which must exist between the Reform of Local Taxation and that of Local Government, is of opinion that the relief granted to ratepayers in Counties and Boroughs should be by the transfer to Local Authorities of the Revenue proceeding from particular Taxes or portions of Taxes, and that a measure dealing with the whole question of Local Taxation and of Local Government is most urgently required.

Back to