Commons Sitting of 24 April 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Contagious Diseases [Expenses].
Second Reading—Transubstantiation, &c, Declaration Abolition [82], deferred.
Committee—Exchequer and Audit Departments (re-comm.) [79]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* [117].
Report—Exchequer and Audit Departments (re-comm.) [79]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* [117].
Considered as amended—Superannuations (Officers Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards) [52].
Third Reading—Prosecution Expenses* [28], and passed.

RYE ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That Lauchlan Bellingham Mackinnon, esquire, is duly elected a Baron to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and Port of Rye.
And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed, That the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
That Thomas Bourne was bribed by the payment of £5 and £1 from Robert Hord for his vote.
That two letters, containing £5 each, were sent about the time of the Election to Samuel Len-nard for the purpose of influencing his vote.
That it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge of the sitting Member or his Agents.
That the attempt to prove that the Revd. William Brocklebank was bribed by a promise of an appointment for his son by the sitting Member was entirely unsupported by evidence, and is frivolous and vexatious.
That the attempts to prove that George Jenner was bribed by a promise of an appointment for his nephew by the sitting Member was entirely unsupported by evidence, and is frivolous and vexatious.
1988
That there is not reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Town and Port of Rye.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW ZEALAND—BISHOPRIC OF NELSON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Bishopric of Nelson, New Zealand, had not continued vacant for many months in consequence of the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to assent to the consecration of a successor, although such successor has been nominated by the Bishop of London, at the request and with the subsequent approval of the Synod of the diocese, and whether such assent has not been requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Bishops and other members of the Church in New Zealand, without asking for any Patent, or for the grant of any temporal dignity or coercive authority. He also wished to ask, whether the assent of the Crown has not been given in a similar case in reference to Rupert's Land?
  MR. CARDWELLreplied that it was quite true the succession to the Bishopric of Nelson had remained vacant for some time in consequence of the inability of the Crown to give a sanction to the appointment of a successor in the usual way; that inability having been occasioned by the difficulties which had arisen in law in consequence of the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Natal. The Bishops of New Zealand had presented a memorial to the Crown, in which they prayed that they might be permitted to surrender their Letters Patent, and that their successors should be appointed without Letters Patent. They further prayed they might be permitted to fill up vacancies in their own body by their own inherent right, without Letters Patent or Royal Mandate. That memorial from the Bishops of New Zealand was accompanied by a minute from the Ministers of New Zealand, objecting to the creating of corporations within the colony by the act of the Crown without their advice, and objecting to any arrangement by which any quasi-jurisdiction of the Bishops of New Zealand should receive any authority from the Crown. Under these circumstances, and considering the difficulty with which the matter was beset since the decision of the Privy Council, it had been the opinion of Her Majesty's Advisers that a Bill on

  1989
  the subject should be prepared and submitted to Parliament, as they were desirous to have the opinion of Parliament before any further action was taken. With regard to Rupert's Land, the Bishop there was waiting for consecration at the time when the decision of the Privy Council was given, and therefore, to obviate any inconvenience in that case, not Letters Patent, but by the advice of the Law Officers, a Royal Mandate was given for the consecration of the Bishop.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he wished to know-when the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would be introduced?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would take an early opportunity of giving notice on the subject.

COOLIES—EMIGRATION TO THE FRENCH COLONIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to know, Whether the private information conveyed to him has been confirmed by any information in possession of the Government, to the effect that the French Government do not intend to press for the renewal of the Treaty permitting the exportation of Coolies from the East Indies to the French Colonies?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he regretted that he could not give a satisfactory answer to the question of the hon. Member. The time for giving notice had been prolonged, and he was not certain what course the French Government would pursue. When he received information on the subject he would take care to communicate it to the hon. Member.

DIVISION OF NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What reply the Government have made to Addresses from New Zealand for separation of the two islands under distinct Governments?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the answer which the Governor of New Zealand had been directed to return to the addresses was, that the British Government were not prepared to encourage any expectation that they would be able to advise the concurrence of the Crown in the separation. At the same time, as it was stated that the Governor had expressed an opinion in favour of some change of Go-
  1990
  vernment in the northern portion of the Northern Island, he had directed that officer to bring the matter under the consideration of his responsible advisers, with a view to submitting to the Legislature of New Zealand such measures as might seem advisable.

THE FENIANS AND THE BRITISH AMERICAN COLONIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD DUNKELLINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any intelligence of an attack made or threatened by the Fenians on any of our North American Colonies; and, if he will communicate the purport of it to the House?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that he had received no account of any attack made by the Fenians on any part of the British North American Provinces. With regard to attacks threatened, it had been known to the House and the country for some time past that rumours of such threatened attacks had given rise to a great manifestation of loyal feeling among the people of the Provinces, and that precautions against such attacks had been adopted both by the Imperial and Colonial authorities. He had received no further account of the proceedings to which the noble Lord, alluded, except that at the departure of the last mail from Halifax a body of Fenians was stated to be assembling on the eastern boundary of the United States, but he had the strongest expectation that the precautions taken would prevent any attack that might be contemplated.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS,in rising to bring forward the Motion on this subject of which he had given notice, observed, that he would most willingly have given way to allow the important debate on the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill to be proceeded with; but, as the House was aware, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) declined to accede to the suggestion which had been made to him to do so. He, therefore, hoped the House would give him a patient hearing while introducing to their notice a subject which was one of considerable national importance, and in which his con-

  1991
  stituents were especially interested. About two years ago he had called the attention of the House to the anomaly which existed with respect to lands, houses, and buildings occupied by the Government for public purposes being held to be exempt from the payment of local rates. The Government claimed the privilege of occupying houses, premises, and lands without being subjected to the rates for local purposes, for the relief of the poor, for maintaining highways, for lighting, watching, sewerage, or sanitary rates, while other occupiers of property in such neighbourhoods were compelled to pay and did pay a greater proportion of rates than was their fair share in consequence of the Government not paying their proper quota for the property they occupied. The rate of the United Kingdom amounted to a very considerable sum, and they were yearly increasing. In England and Wales they amounted to about £17,000,000; and, taking Ireland and Scotland into account, they probably amounted to over £20,000,000—an amount equal to the revenue of some of the large kingdoms of Europe. Surely it was but just that those rates should be fairly distributed among occupiers, so that every occupier should only pay his proper share? Last year the important question of liability to local rates was brought before the highest court of appeal in order to determine a case which had been many years in litigation between the Mersey Docks and the parochial authorities of Liverpool. The result was an unanimous decision of the Law Lords, concurred in by a majority of the Judges, that all property in useful occupation, whether held by trustees or not, was rateable. From time immemorial charitable institutions had been exempt, but by the decision of the House of Lords even property of that description was now liable to the payment of local rates, and he might mention that King's College Hospital had already acknowledged its liability in accordance with the decision. The only property now held to be exempt—not by statute, but the precedents of the Courts of Law, was property occupied by the Crown, whether for personal or for public purposes, the Crown not being held to be liable to any rates or taxes, unless specially named by Act of Parliament. The subject was not new to the House, for in 1858 a Committee was appointed composed of many most experienced Members, to consider this question, and it was presided over by the late Sir
  1992
  George Lewis. The opinion of that Committee was expressed very much in the language of the Resolution of the hon. Member. In fact, he had copied his Resolution from it—that all lands and buildings used and occupied for public purposes ought to be liable to local rates in the same manner as other property, and pay rates accordingly. His constituents were peculiarly aggrieved by the present exemption of Government property from rates. In Deptford especially the whole district around the Dockyard Victualling Establishment was at one time comparatively uninhabited and the neighbourhood pauperized. A large proportion of the Government property there was situated in a small parish, and the consequence was that the poor's rate at one time amounted to 12 s. in the pound, and the other rates to 2s., making together 14 s. in the pound. To give effect to the Report of the Committee of 1858, the right hon. Gentleman then Member for Wiltshire brought in a Bill to make all property liable to rates. The first clause of that Bill was to this effect—After the 1st of October next no lands, tenements, or hereditaments shall be held to be exempt from assessment to the poor rate or other local rate on the ground of the Royal prerogative, or because the trusts on which the same are held or the purposes to which they are applied are of a public nature, or because no person derives any beneficial interest from the occupation thereof. That Bill was opposed by the representatives of the charitable institutions which would have been affected by it, and their opposition prevailing, the measure was withdrawn. In the next Session the Government proposed in the Estimates a sum of money to be given in certain cases to those districts where the public establishments were large, and by their exemption from rates added greatly to the burdens of the inhabitants. But that he thought was found to be a very unsatisfactory arrangement; and, seeing that now every occupation, whether for charitable purposes or otherwise, was by the recent decision subject to local rating, he thought it would be becoming in the House and the Ministers of the Crown to accept the terms of his Resolution. It was not only his constituents who complained of the present state of the law, he had also received numerous applications from different parts of the country from persons who felt aggrieved. The wrongs of Chelsea had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Bath. The Govern-

  1993
  ment occupied seventy-six acres in Chelsea, which was about one-tenth of the whole surface of the parish, the total rates levied in the parish of St. Luke's being £51,000, to which the Government contributed only £515. There was not a town in the kingdom that had not a post office, and a post office was nothing more than a trading establishment carried on in the name of the Government. The business of the post office might be thus described. It possessed an entire monopoly of the carriage of letters at a profit. It carried parcels at a profit. It sold stamps, competing with private dealers. It transmitted money at a profit, competing with bankers. It had opened Government savings banks, competing with the other institutions of this kind. And it now undertook to grant annuities, &c, thus competing with the insurance offices. And yet these various establishments, competing as they did with private establishments and carrying on this large amount of business, contributed nothing towards their share of the local burdens in the districts in which they were placed. This exemption was an antiquated remnant of a system of privilege enjoyed by the Crown to the detriment of the subject, and ought no longer to exist; for it was clearly unjust that the people of any parish should be subjected to additional taxation, merely because of the existence of a Government establishment in it. Parishes mostly preferred submitting to the injustice, to the uncertainty and expense of seeking redress in the Courts of Law, but the law reports were full of cases of this kind, and the Judges had repeatedly expressed their opinion of the hardship which was inflicted by this practice. The legal tribunals having now laid down the broad principle that all property of whatever description, whether occupied for charitable purposes or otherwise, should be subjected to rating, he thought the time had come when the House and the Government might, with propriety, accede to his proposition. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should consider the expediency of recommending to Parliament that all lands and buildings used and occupied for public purposes ought to be liable to local rates in the same manner as other property, and pay rates accordingly."
  MR. TITE,in seconding the Motion, said, that by way of illustrating the grievances which now existed, he would take the parish of Chelsea, in which he was a resident, and acted as one of the overseers of
  1994
  the poor. The parish contained 771 acres, and a population of 60,000 persons; the annual rating was £51,000, and the Government occupied seventy-six acres or one-tenth of the whole parish—and yet, although the parish was exceedingly poor, the Government contributed nothing to the rates, except for a few houses occupied by military officers. They had, however, recently taken a large extent of land and had built an enormous extent of barracks, thereby greatly increasing the burden on the parish, but they had only thought it right to contribute the mere agricultural value of the land some £300 or £400 per annum. The parochial burdens were exceedingly heavy, and the presence of the pensioners entailed a great expense to the parish. An appeal had been made to the Lords of the Treasury on the question, and they replied that their rule was, that if the Government property amounted to one-sixth of the area of the parish they considered themselves liable to the poor rate; but, as in the case of Chelsea the proportion was only one-tenth, no remedy was obtainable. If that rule was universally enforced something might, perhaps, be said in its favour; but at Plymouth, where the Government only held one-twelfth of the parish, they contributed £6,000 to the local burdens, whereas at Chelsea they paid only £600 for some additional land and buildings. He could see no reason for such an inequality, and as the poor rate in Chelsea was 2s. 10 d. in the pound on the rack rental, and he had himself paid 4s. in the pound on his own property, he thought that a strong case for redress had been made out, and that the rule applied to Plymouth should be also applied to Chelsea.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should consider the expediency of recommending to Parliament that all lands and buildings used and occupied for public purposes ought to be liable to local rates in the same manner as other property, and pay rates accordingly:"—(Mr. Alderman Salomons.)
  MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINremarked that in the case of St. Margaret's, Rochester, the grievance was even greater than that complained of in Chelsea, as the Government refused to make any contribution to the local burdens, although, in addition to their military prison or hospital, they kept a large part of the parish under grass, and rendered some of the best building sites useless on account of

  1995
  the present kind of artillery necessitating a much larger space for fortifications. The parish was principally inhabited by the poorer classes, who complained very much of the pressure of the rates, to which the Government refused to contribute one farthing. He thought, therefore, that the sum voted for the rating of Government establishments ought to be shared in fairer proportions among the various parishes entitled to participate in it.
  MR. CHILDERSwould first state what the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was, and then what was the exact state of things with regard to the rating of Government property at the present time. The proposal made by the hon. Gentleman was that all public property should be rated, and that, not according to its then value, but according to what its value would be if it were built upon by private speculators. The annual amount at present paid by Government for rates upon public property in different parts of the country was about £27,000, but what they would have to pay were the property to be rated as if it were built upon—for instance, in Chelsea—he could not even guess at. Therefore, in the interest of the general taxpayers of the country, he trusted the House would hesitate before they acceded to the proposition of the hon. Member. The state of things as regarded the payments made by Government on account of local rates was this—It had been supposed that the law made a distinction between property said to be beneficially occupied and that not so occupied; and that the latter was not subject to local rates. That appeared to have been the received doctrine on the subject until the decision in the House of Lords in July last, which laid down the rule that all property whether beneficially occupied or not was subject to the payment of rates, but that as the Crown was not expressly mentioned in the statute, Government property was generally exempt. Until 1861 no payment whatever was made by Government on account of rates upon public property, but in 1858 there was an inquiry into the subject by a Committee of that House, and the result was that a Bill was introduced to render Government property liable generally to poor rates. That Bill was not proceeded with beyond the second reading, but the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis took the opportunity of entering fully into the question, and eventually an arrangement was come to whereby all Government
  1996
  property, when it should amount to one-sixth of the whole rateable value—not one-sixth of the area—of the parish should pay rates for the relief of the poor, but no other local rates; the amount to be provided by an annual Vote to be taken for that purpose. Where the Government property did not amount to one-sixth of the whole rateable value of the parish, it was not considered that the parish had such a claim as would justify Government in asking Parliament to supply funds to meet it. In the case of new property to be acquired by Government, however, it was agreed that Government should continue to pay, not only the poor rates, but all other local rates to which the property was liable before it passed into their hands, but only according to the value assessed at the time of Government becoming the owners. That was the state of things up to the middle of last year, but since that time two things had happened by which the question had been substantially affected. In the first place, by the decision of the House of Lords in July last, the whole doctrine of beneficial occupation, as it was formerly understood, was swept away. The law as laid down by that decision was simply this—that all property was subject to rating except that in the occupation of the Crown, the Crown not having been mentioned in the Act. The next disturbing cause was the passing of the Union Chargeability Act, by which the area of rating was extended from the parish to the union, so that the proportion of Government property before it would become liable to be rated, must amount to one-sixth of the rateable value of the union instead of one-sixth of the rateable value of the parish. These two changes had taken place since last year. As regarded the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) the great anomalies of which he had complained would thus be to a great extent removed. For instance, the parishes which most complained of the operation of the rule of one-sixth would, he believed, have no cause of complaint when the union rule should come into operation. At the same time, he was prepared to say that it was difficult after the decision of the House of Lords, and after the change in the area of rating, to say at once whether the present system was entirely satisfactory; and, therefore, before either the Government or the House pledged themselves to maintain the existing state of things they required further time

  1997
  to see how the present law operated, If necessary, Government would at some future time ask the House to make such alterations in the present system as might be found necessary. At the same time, it must be remembered that there were two sides to the question. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that in certain districts the local authorities did not receive anything from Government in the shape of rates upon public property; but if local rates were to be paid fully by the Government, it would be proper to charge property belonging to local authorities, such as parochial or local institutions, with Government taxes such as the income tax I and the house tax. And in such case it was by no means clear that the change would be to the benefit of the local taxpayers. Believing that he had shown to the House that the adoption of the Resolution might lead to many difficulties, he would strongly urge its rejection.
  MR. FERRANDthought that the hon. Member who had brought forward this subject had by so doing done good service to many persons who at present suffered considerably. He was almost afraid to refer to the injustice which the present state of things inflicted upon the inhabitants of his own constituency (Devonport), lest the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of confining himself to the disfranchisement of the dockyard men, who were to lose their power of voting in consequence of their Members having made known their grievances, should introduce a clause into the Reform Bill disfranchising the whole of the borough. He must, however, so far perform his duty as to state that the exemption of Government property in Devonport from rating was a great injustice to the ratepayers, and constituted another reason, arising from the additional taxation, why the dockyard men were entitled to the increase of wages which they had petitioned for.
  MR. BRADYgave his decided opposition to the Motion, on the ground that the inhabitants of the places where Government property was situated derived advantage in other ways from its being in their neighbourhood.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYobserved, that the Government already paid rates in some instances, and, therefore, they to a certain extent admitted that there was some claim upon them for rates in respect of their property. It did not seem unjust that when all other property paid rates Govern-
  1998
  ment property should also pay. As to the rateability of public property and of private property not beneficially occupied, the whole question had recently undergone a material change. The decision to which attention had been called, though it did not affect Crown property, yet affected the decisions of the Courts that had decreed originally the exemption of Crown property. In the Statute of Elizabeth, Crown property was not mentioned, and therefore from the beginning it was exempt from rating; and the Judges looked not merely to the fact of the exemption, but to the ground of exemption—namely, that the buildings were occupied for a public purpose, and not for the benefit of the persons occupying them; and they carried out that principle. On that principle the docks at Liverpool, and the great charities in London and other large cities, were exempted from rating. But the decision which had lately been given in the House of Lords materially changed all this, and, therefore, it was time that the law should be carefully looked into. He thought his hon. Friend had done good service in bringing forward this Resolution, although he should not advise that the Motion should be pressed to a division, as investigation was promised; yet he wished to say that lie thought that the matter should be investigated, not by the Treasury only, but also by the Poor Law Board. The question was a very large one, and he should be glad to see the whole subject inquired into, and the exemption, if continued to Government property, extended to charitable, and literary, and scientific institutions.
  MR. DENMANwished to illustrate the hardship of the present state of the law, by a case in which he had been professionally concerned. Formerly, property vested in the old East India Company was rateable; but it was decided some short time since that, from the time the Act of Parliament passed transferring the government of India to the Crown, the same property when invested in Her Majesty for the purposes of India was exempted. The consequences of this was, especially in one instance—of the parish of Lambeth—that when the Crown possessed large property, the burden of heavy poor rates was thrown upon those who, from their own poverty, could ill afford to support it.
  MAJOR DICKSONdenied that the Government works at Dover were any attraction to strangers, and contended that the land which was employed for the safety of

  1999
  the country ought to share the burdens of the district upon whose inhabitants it conferred no special benefit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there could be no doubt as to the importance of the question now raised, particularly after what had been said by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He said, "We admit our liability to local taxation by the provisional arrangement which now subsists." [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: Not our liability, but the justice of the claim.] He was bound to say that the observation just made reflected upon another point of the speech of the hon. Member, which was not quite accurate. The hon. Member observed that the question was not a great change in the law; but, in point of fact, it was a very great change in the law which was now the question—in as much as, by law, up to the present moment, the whole of the property of the Crown for purposes of rating was entirely exempt from taxation. He inferred, however, from the tone of his hon. Friend, and the general tone of the House, that, owing to a want of information on the subject, it was not now possible to come to any conclusion upon it. Perhaps, however, the House would allow him to bring into view one or two topics which it was very necessary to bear in mind in discussing the question. In the first place, it was necessary to bear in mind that, whilst Gentlemen appeared there as the advocates of particular parishes which had Government works within their limits, the great majority of the parishes in the Kingdom had no such works. In passing, he would relieve the mind of the hon. Member for Devonport, who seemed to labour under great anxiety with regard to the borough he represented. He seemed to think that his fate was trembling in the scales; but there would be no betrayal of confidence if he were to state that the Government had not the slightest intention of proposing the disfranchisement of the borough of Devonport. [Mr. FERRAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman omit Clause 10?] He would limit his answer to the question which was first put to him, and he replied that there was no intention to disfranchise the borough of Devonport. As he understood the matter before the House, there were four great classes of exemptions from rates in the country; but it was the double character of the exemptions which he wished to impress upon the mind of the House. Besides the question
  2000
  of rateability very fairly raised by his hon. Friend, there was another question which it would be the duty of the Government to raise when the important and extensive inquiry was instituted to which reference had been made—namely, the question of taxability. By rateability he meant liability to contribute to the funds contributed for local government; and by taxability, liability to contribute to the funds necessary for Imperial Government. It had been said that it was exceedingly unjust that Government property should be exempted. His hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Salomons) had said—and the point was not at all an ill-selected one—that he was connected with a large institution, the London and Westminster Bank, opposite to one branch of which was a Post Office, which transacted mercantile business in the carriage of letters, and which, as a savings bank, competed with the Bank in the transmission of money, and so forth. Now, did his hon. Friend think that the London and Westminster Bank suffered any serious detriment, or any detriment at all, from the competition of the Post Office savings bank in the receipt of deposits of 1s. and upwards? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would gladly make the bargain with the hon. Member, that if he would admit the savings banks to the general banking business, savings banks and money order offices should be rated. The fairest case of complaint, however, of the exemption of Government buildings from payment of rates was that with which the hon. Member for Devonport was conversant, where manufacturing premises were exempt. In those establishments competition was carried on with private traders; but the business of the Post Office savings bank consisted of the dregs, the refuse which nobody else cared to appropriate. With regard to the case of fortifications, the Member for Dover had stated a case. It was somewhat singular, it amounted almost to a paradox, that when the State was at great expense to surround a particular place—certainly for the special advantage in case of invasion of the inhabitants of that particular place—with walls and trenches and other fortifications, they should be made subject to rates for the purposes of local government. What he wanted to point out, however, was that it was not a question merely of Government buildings, nor a question merely of liability to local rates, but that if exemptions from direct taxation were to

  2001
  be removed all classes of exemption must be removed, and removed not merely as it regarded local taxation, but Imperial taxation. All buildings required for local government, all the municipal buildings, and the buildings of local bodies of every kind would necessarily, if this principle were to be established, become liable to contribute towards the revenues of the State. The question was a very large one, and he did not think it was possible for any hon. Member to take into view at the present moment the complexity and diversity of results which such a change would involve. The present arrangement, as had been stated by his Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, was a defective arrangement. It was not, however, to lie considered as an arrangement that rested upon any ground of law; he apprehended that it was a provisional arrangement made to meet a pressing and urgent demand. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford was perfectly correct when he stated that the subject was not a matter merely for the investigation of the Treasury; it was quite evident that it must go beyond the province of that Department, and embrace the case of religious buildings and charitable property, the case of municipal property, the property of all public boards, and of quasi-public and semi-public boards. And with regard to these different classes of public buildings it would be necessary to consider their liability, not merely to local rates, but to the direct taxation which was levied for Imperial purposes. The subject was undoubtedly assuming a somewhat urgent character. It was very hard when, owing to the construction of some new works of the Government in a parish, a large area of land, which formerly was made contributory to the rates, was withdrawn; for the consequence was that the rates levied on the other portion of the parish became proportionately heavier. The question from its nature, extent, and variety was one of great difficulty; but undoubtedly it ought to be searched to the bottom, with the view, if possible, of arriving as soon as might be at an advantageous settlement.
  MR. WARNERstated that the anomalies which had been brought forward that night had been very much aggravated during the last year or two. If there were to be exemptions, they should be founded on some fixed principle. According to the decision of Lord Westbury, charitable institutions—which formerly, by a kind of
  2002
  courtesy or oversight, had not been rated—were now liable to contribute to the local rates. If schools for the education of the poor were to pay poor rates, it seemed but fair to levy rates upon buildings erected for the general benefit of both rich and poor. He was very glad that the question had been raised, feeling convinced that the discussion would lead to a re-consideration of the law. He believed that nothing was more needed than a consolidation of the law of rating, and he hoped the Government would turn their attention to it.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSexpressed his satisfaction at the turn the discussion had taken, and with the understanding that the subject would not be lost sight of, but be thoroughly investigated at an early day, he begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POOR LAW EXPENDITURE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. KNIGHT,in moving a Resolution on this subject, said, that for nearly throe centuries each parish had provided the money for relieving its own poor, and directed the way in which the money was to be expended. The tendency of modern legislation, however, had been very much to change this order of things. The agitation for the extension of the area of rating bad been confined to very few places, and it was got up chiefly by the action of the Poor Law Board. The law of Elizabeth laid it down that everybody ought to be rated according to his ability, but it was very difficult in parochial rating to ascertain the ability of a person to pay. The matter was at last settled in 1839 by a distinct decision that stock-in-trade was absolutely rateable, but it was afterwards found necessary to excuse it from rating. Be that as it might, the state of the law was now altogether changed. Modern legislation had since 1839 laid down many new precedents, and it had been in repeated instances acknowledged that it was unfair that the whole of the local rates should be paid by real property. A portion of the county rate, he might add, for certain local purposes, a portion of the police, the salaries of the masters and mistresses of union workhouses, the stipends of pupil-teachers, part of the expenses for medical officers, and some other

  2003
  small charges were at present paid out of monies annually voted by Parliament. Now that a new Poor Law had been established in England a national rate was called for from all quarters, and he wished under those circumstances to ask the House to lay down a rule which would render the principle established by modern legislation safe; because it would not, he thought, be safe to establish a national rate in the full sense of the word, as contemplated by many persons, which would surely be to allow the guardians to dip their hand in the national till. To make everything a national charge would be to lead to great confusion and almost to national bankruptcy, and he found by the accounts of rating which had been published by the Poor Law Commissioners in 1837 that there were more than thirty heads of such expenditure which had nothing to do with the maintenance of the poor. Recent Returns showed that the amount of property which paid the poor rate was £143,000,000, but the large amount of £169,000,000 of ascertained income was not assessed to the poor rate. He did not bring forward his Motion with the expectation of its being at once carried out, but only with the view of obtaining an expression of opinion on the part of the House that certain items should from time to time be added to those which he had already mentioned as being placed on the national Exchequer. The head centres of the great agitation in favour of national rating were Norwich, St. George's-in-the-East, Hammersmith, and Fulham, but those places were left in the same situation in which they were previously to the recent measure for the establishment of union rating. While he did not deny the justice of the appeal for the reduction of the malt tax, it must not be forgotten that only a comparatively small portion of the country would benefit by its abolition, but to reduce the poor rate would be to confer a benefit on every voter in the United Kingdom, and especially on the smaller class of voters. In conclusion, he begged to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that all items of Poor Law expenditure throughout the United Kingdom, not being in-maintenance or out-relief, or otherwise under the immediate control and direction of Boards of Guardians or Parishes officers, should become a National charge."
  MR. WARNERseconded the Motion; and said the expense of taking care of the sick in workhouses and the hospitals ought
  2004
  to devolve upon a general and not local rate, as the cases of inhumanity recently made public in connection with the London workhouses had sufficiently shown that Boards of Guardians were not capable of; managing these departments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that all items of Poor Law expenditure throughout the United Kingdom, not being in-maintenance or out-relief, or otherwise under the immediate control and direction of Boards of Guardians or Parish Officers, should become a National charge."—(Mr. Knight.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas glad to hear the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion say that he did not expect his Motion would be at once adopted by the House, and probably, therefore, the hon. Gentleman did not intend to press it upon the attention of the House, his object being that the principle contained in his Resolution should be considered by the House. The moderate course pursued by the hon. Gentleman relieved them from much difficulty, because it would enable them to discuss the question raised without prejudice, and it was very desirable that the attention of the Government and of hon. Gentlemen should be directed to the subject, in order that a clear conclusion might be arrived at as to the best mode in which local charges should be provided for. He might say that he was one of those who did not think that these transfers of local charges to the Consolidated Fund were things in themselves politic and advisable, and in his opinion no such transfer should take place, except for some very strong and definite object of public policy connected with the immediate matter. The hon. Gentleman mentioned various precedents in favour of his proposal, referring to the police rate and the medical and educational expenses connected with the administration of the Poor Law, and he might also have referred to the greatest instance of all—the constabulary expenses in Ireland. With regard to the police rate, the reason why the Consolidated Fund was saddled with one-fourth of the expense was simply to secure a great object of public policy in the establishment of an efficient police. So with regard to the medical and educational expenses, one great object in view was to bring up the administration of the Poor Law to the point which it was deemed requisite that it should attain. In

  2005
  the case of the Irish constabulary, it was thought necessary to establish a force which should be in some degree independent of local control, and, that being so, a very large portion of the charge was from the first placed on the public Exchequer. He regretted that it had been found necessary to carry the transfer of those charges even to the point that had now been reached. The hon. Gentleman had stated that where-as there were £169,000,000 of ascertained income not assessable to the poor rate, the whole burden fell upon £143,000,000 of property. At first sight there appeared rather an inequality in this, but in point of fact the inequality was extremely small. Where a parish was entirely rural, it was quite immaterial whether the local rate was laid according to the Scotch principle, now abandoned, on means and substances, or upon visible property subject to rating. In town parishes, also, the inequality would be perfectly immaterial; and the only parishes where the inequality was of any importance were mixed parishes, partly rural and partly manufacturing or mining. In that case he admitted that the mining income and profits of trade were not taxed equally with the agricultural property. But, then, it must be borne in mind that all that mining and manufacturing property usually came into the parish not to aggravate, but to alleviate, existing burdens. The question of transferring local taxes to the public Exchequer was far from being free of political difficulty. If those taxes were in excess, the feeling of the people on the spot was made to bear on them. In respect to Imperial taxation people were called on to pay taxes not for purposes of which they witnessed the results with their own eyes in their own neighbourhood, but which they had only a vague impression of If the rule of transferring local burdens to the general Exchequer were acted on without discrimination, the political danger would be most serious. The public debt of the country amounted to about £800,000,000, and it was almost hopeless to deal with it. But it was not necessary to put our local taxation in debt. Local taxation would be made to pay its way from year to year. On the other hand, the course of natural indebtedness (to use an American term) had been continually becoming worse and worse. He wished the hon. Member also to consider that every claim of this sort made for England raised corresponding claims for Ireland and Scotland, and, then, a series of questions would be created which
  2006
  would be almost incapable of solution, for it was almost impossible to apply to the three countries a uniform principle which would not cause a great deal of discontent, and it would be difficult to persuade people that they had not been unequally dealt with. The hon. Gentleman proposed, in effect, that a large amount of charge should be carried from the local to the Imperial Exchequer, and so far as he could estimate the amount so charged would be about £2,250,000 for the three kingdoms. At present these local charges were paid out of a fund borne by the property of the country, and computations which he had seen showed that not more than 1–12th or 1–15th of the local taxation was paid by the working classes; but putting their contribution at 1–9th, which was a high estimate, they would pay £250,000. But supposing the principle were adopted that the whole of the charge should be carried to the Imperial Exchequer, what proportion of the taxation would the working classes pay? Not less than one-third unquestionably. The hon. Member opposite shook his head, but if he had not studied the subject, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) ventured to assure him that it was not an extravagant computation. Hardly any person would place their contribution at less than a fourth; he himself was inclined to rate it higher than one-third. Assuming one-third to be the correct proportion, the effect of the change would be that the working classes, who now contributed £250,000 towards the local charges, would then contribute £750,000 to the Imperial Exchequer. In every point of view, the question was a most serious one, and he was glad that the House was not then called upon to give any decision upon it. Before pressing the matter forward on any future occasion, the hon. Gentleman, he hoped, would carefully examine all the important, elements which the Motion embraced.
  MR. KNIGHT,in reply, said, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been more appropriate if it had been delivered before the passing of the Act of last Session, when the Government threw the whole adjustment of the question previously existing to the winds, and substituted an entirely new state of things. The ratepayers were greatly grieved by the operation of that Act, because in many parishes property was one-eighth less in value now than it was before the passing of the Act.

  2007
  He regretted that he could not coincide with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer).
  Question put, and negatived.

  FIRE INSURANCE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HODGKINSONappealed to the hon. Member for Dudley not to proceed with his Motion relative to the further reduction of the fire insurance duty. Considering the excitement which prevailed in the House, and in the public mind at the present time with reference to another subject, he thought the hon. Gentleman would best consult the interests of the cause which he had at heart by postponing his Motion, and leaving the subject for the present in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that if he had been present on the previous night when the discussion took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition, he should certainly have announced his intention of withdrawing his Motion to-night. So many representations had been made to him in the course of the afternoon that it would be better to postpone this question, at all events for the Session, leaving the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who had already made large concessions, that he thought his best course would probably be to withdraw the Motion of which he had given notice and wait patiently to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to do with reference to the subject.

  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c, DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL.
  (Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Sir John Gray, Mr. Cogan)

  [BILL 82.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that no statement had been made as to the scope or origin of this Bill. It seemed to be the co-relative measure of the Bill respecting the Roman Catholic oath. That measure was called a Bill for unmuzzling Roman Catholics, whilst the present Bill might be
  2008
  called one for muzzling Protestants. The effect of the Bill would be to relieve persons from taking a declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation at the offering up of the Mass. He should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell them what he meant by transubstantiation. Whatever was meant by it, it had always been considered as that particular feature of the Romish faith to which persons might object without being open to the charge of religious bigotry. Transubstantiation was not merely a matter of faith with Roman Catholics but was with the mass that particular ceremony of the Church which derived all its efficacy from a power conferred on priests by the Pope, and though it was the policy of this country to allow every man to worship God as he pleased, they never, on any pretence of religious liberty, had allowed a Foreign Power to interfere in that House.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, there had been some misunderstanding as to whether this Bill would be brought on to-night, and therefore he begged to withdraw his Motion for the second reading.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there certainly had been some misunderstanding upon the subject, and therefore it would be better to postpone the second reading for a fortnight.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 8th May.

  SUPERANNUATIONS (OFFICERS METROPOLITAN VESTRIES AND DISTRICT BOARDS) BILL.
  (Mr. Harvey Lewis, Mr. Chambers.)

  [BILL 118.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendments made.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, after the word "allowance," to insert the words "or of the late Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers."—(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, after the word "district," to insert the words "and also all corporate bodies elected by the vestry for parochial purposes."—(Mr. Wyld.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Friday.

  EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS (recommitted) BILL.
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers.)

  [BILL 79.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 9 to 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15,
  MR. AYRTONcalled attention to its language, according to which, he said, Ways and Means were to be granted by Resolution without an Act of Parliament. The clause would allow the Treasury without the sanction of Parliament, to take possession of money and dispose of it as they liked.
  MR. CHILDERSreplied that this was the state of things at present, and practically it was the only possible state of things.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18,
  MR. E. CRAUFURDobjected to the Controller being made co-ordinate with the other officer, and stated that there was a possibility of there being a divided opinion in the Report the clause directed should be presented to the House. He thought justice had not been done to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) for the way in which he had watched over the great principle of the Bill, which enabled the House to stop the supplies whenever circumstances required the adoption of such a course; and the House owed him a great debt of gratitude for the attention he had given to the subject.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENdid not see how, in certain circumstances, the Report could be made a joint Report from the officers named in the clause. The Bill stated that there was to be a Report made and signed by two officers; but if they were to differ in opinion he did not see how this could be done.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the clause, in the way he read it, unless amended would bring things to a dead lock, and the result would probably be that the House
  2010
  would get no Report at all. He could not see that it was necessary that the Controller and Auditor General should be aided by the Assistant Controller and Auditor in drawing up the Report; but if it were to be so, the words "jointly or separately" should be inserted in the clause, so as to insure a Report from one of them.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he could not take credit for all that the hon. Member for Ayr had said regarding the preservation of the great principle of the Bill. It was true that the Bill when originally proposed did not contemplate the aid of the Assistant Controller in the matter; but after a full inquiry it was deemed advisable to follow the example of public companies, and appoint two auditors. In discussing the subject a variety of questions arose, and, as it was believed that no work would be done unless the responsibility were fixed upon one individual, it was agreed that a head officer should be appointed in whom the Parliament could place confidence, and that he should be well paid and have power to make rules for the discipline of his office. There would, however, be no objection to introduce the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford-shire, and with that Amendment he trusted the clause would be agreed to.
  MR. WHALLEYwas of opinion that, as the clause now stood, the difficulty anticipated by the hon. Gentleman could not possibly arise. The clause did not say that the Controller General and the Assistant Auditor were to report unanimously. They might, therefore, as it appeared to him, express their separate opinions in the Report.
  MR. E. CRAUFURDsaid, his object was that, though the whole responsibility rested upon the Controller General, the Assistant Controller would be brought in upon equal terms with him when the Report was made to the House. He therefore moved the omission of the words "the Assistant Controller and Auditor."
  MR. HENLEYcould not vote for the Amendment, the effect of which, taken in conjunction with the eighth clause, would be that the Controller General might leave the Report to be made by the Assistant Controller alone. The House, in that event, would only get a Report from the less responsible officer.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would take care that words should be inserted in order to prevent the possibility, in case of a dif-

  2011
  ference of opinion, of separate Reports being made.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 26 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL (HARDEN PETITION).
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire whether the signatures to the Petition presented to this House upon the 12th day of April 1866, professing to be a Petition of Inhabitants of Harden, near Bingley, in the County of York, in favour of the Representation of the People Bill, are the genuine signatures of the persons whose signatures they profess to be; and, under what circumstances such signatures were annexed."—(Mr. Ferrand.)

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES [EXPENSES] BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision for the payment of any Expenses that may be incurred, under any Act of the present Session for the better prevention of Contagious Diseases at certain Naval and Military Stations, out of money to be provided by Parliament for that purpose.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Ten o'clock.