Commons Sitting of 11 March 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Boston, v. Meaburn Staniland, esquire, Manor of North-stead.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. Percy Egerton Herbert, for Salop (Southern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Limited Liability Acts, Mr. William Edward Forster added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sale of Land by Auction * [70].
Second Reading—Valuation of Property [12].
Committed to Select Committee—Valuation of Property [12].
Committee—Metropolitan Poor (re-comm.) [66]; Consolidated Fund (£369,118 5s. 6d.) *
Report—Metropolitan Poor (re-comm.) [66]; Consolidated Fund (£369,118 5s. 6d.) *
Considered as amended—Sugar Duties [37].
Third Reading—Shipping Local Dues * [5]; Duty on Dogs * [36], and passed.

THE NEW NATIONAL GALLERY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of "Works, "Whether the following statement, contained in a letter addressed to him by the architects competing for the New National Gallery, is not correct, namely—
  "We agreed to enter the competition on the distinct understanding with your Lordship's predecessor, the Right Hon. W. Cowper, that one of the competing architects would be selected for employment;"
  and, whether he does not therefore intend to intrust the erection of the new building to one of those gentlemen?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I do not well understand the object of the hon.

  1645
  Member's Question, nor in what sense he expects me to answer it. If he means whether I place implicit reliance on a statement made by ten gentlemen of high honour and great professional eminence, I answer decidedly in the affirmative, that I do place implicit reliance on their statement. But if he means to ask if I find in the records of the Office of Works any corroboration of that statement, I am bound to say that on looking at the papers I do not find any corroboration of that statement. With respect; to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, he is no doubt aware that the Judges, in their Report, do not give any recommendation as to the reconstruction of the existing National Gallery or the building of a new one. That question, therefore, is left to the consideration of the Government. It is now under their consideration, and I cannot therefore say what course may be adopted with respect either to the re-construction of the old building or the execution of a new one. When that decision is arrived at, I cannot doubt that Government will give every consideration to the agreement stated to have been entered into with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cowper) by the competing architects.

THE DUTCH IN SUMATRA.—QUESTION.
MR. WTHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the table of the House the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Netherlands Government relating to Dutch encroachments on Native States in Sumatra, and also copy of any Memorials thereon presented by British Merchants at Penang?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, the correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman's Question refers extends over a long course of years. It is exceedingly voluminous, and I have not had time to look into it since the notice appeared; but I will have it examined, and any papers that can be laid before the House without public inconvenience shall be produced.

INDIA—FAMINE IN ORISSA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BARNESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, When he expects to receive the Report of the Commission appointed by the Governor
  1646
  General of India on the 8th December last to "elicit full information" concerning the recent famine in Orissa; and whether he will lay the Report on the table of the House as soon as it arrives?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON,in reply, said, it was impossible to say when the Report would arrive, but it would be laid on the table without loss of time. The inquiry was still being prosecuted.

THE REFORM BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Boroughs which are perfectly uncorrupt as well as thoroughly independent, and at the same time are towns of great local importance and centres of trade and commerce over large districts in the Country, are to be called upon to lose a Member in order to promote Reform, on what grounds it is proposed that certain others, which are mere proprietary and nomination Boroughs, and which habitually obey the command of their patron in the election of a Member, are to be exempted from making a corresponding sacrifice?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the inquiry of my hon. Friend, although distinguished by his usual acuteness, does not appear to me to fall within the legitimate limits of Questions such as are put in this House. The inquiry of my hon. Friend is founded upon a series of assumptions which may or may not be true, but which can only he established or refuted, not by answering a question, but by a process of debate and discussion. I hope my hon. Friend will, on further consideration, keep this subject for the impending debate on the Reform Bill rather than expect me to give an answer. If therefore I decline to answer a Question which I could not do without making a speech, I trust that my hon. Friend will not think that I am showing any disrespect to him.

INDIA—THE STRAITS SETTLEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any communication has passed between the India Office and the Governor of the Straits Settlement and the other Indian Officers there as to their removal from their posts by the Secretary for the Colonies; and, if so, what was its date,

  1647
  and whether subsequent to the publication in the newspapers of the appointment of their successors by the Secretary for the Colonies?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the Secretary of State for India took the earliest opportunity of communicating to the Governor General of India, and to the Governor of the Straits Settlements, the intentions of the Colonial Office. He did not wait for the official intimation of the intentions of the Colonial Office; but on the 18th of January he privately ascertained the course which the Colonial Secretary was likely to pursue. He communicated on the same day to the Governor General that the Governor of the Straits Settlements would not be continued in his office, but that a member of the Colonial Staff would be appointed in his place. He received further information on the 29th of January, and he sent at once a confirmation of his previous despatch. The appointment of the new Governor was gazetted on the 5th of February.

ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he wished to know, When it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Army Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for "War would not be in his place on Friday, but that a Vote on account would be taken on that evening to enable hon. Members to proceed with their Questions.

IRELAND—MARTIAL LAW.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Sir, a rumour having reached me this morning which caused me great alarm, but which, I hope, is not true, I deemed it my duty, early this morning, to give the Secretary of State for the Home Department notice of the following Question:—
  "As it is rumoured that the Irish Government intend to proclaim Martial Law, to explain fully to the House the nature and effect of the increased powers which the Proclamation of Martial Law will place in the hands of the authorities, Civil and Military?"
  MR. WALPOLE: In answer, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that there is no intention at present, and I hope, on the part of the Government, there will be no necessity to
  1648
  proclaim martial law in Ireland. Should any occasion occur for it, the House will be informed of any powers which the Government may think it right to ask for that purpose. As to the necessity of proclaiming martial law, the accounts which I have received from Dublin yesterday and this morning are more favourable than they have been for some days; and I can state to the House that the ordinary law of the land will be had recourse to without delay. A Special Commission will be issued to bring the offenders to speedy trial. I am sure that hon. Members connected with Ireland will be gratified to hear a telegram I have received to-day, and which I know is confirmed by others. The hon. Member for Dublin has, I believe, received a similar one—
  "Messrs. Malcolmson, Brothers, state that out of 3,000 persons employed by them at Waterford, Carrick, Portlaw, and Clonmel, not one has left his work to join the insurgents."

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—REFORM STATISTICS.—QUESTION.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to inquire, Whether the Government would lay on the table the statistics referred to by the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbourne) as having been laid before the Cabinet a fortnight since?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No papers have been before the Cabinet which have not been laid on the table of the House. I believe that the House is in possession of all the information the Cabinet have. I have, however, given instructions that for the convenience of Members certain new information shall be prepared and printed, but I regret that it is not yet ready. I am unable to account for the delay, but I will make inquiry as to the reason.
  MR. HORSMAN: We understood from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) that certain figures were given to him and other Members of the Cabinet on which they were to found their opinion as to the measure that was to be proposed. The noble Lord said that those figures at first sight appeared to be favourable to the proposal, but on a closer examination did not. It is desirable that the House should see what were the figures before the noble Lord and the other seceding Members of the Cabinet on which they were to come to a conclusion.

  1649
  I wish to make my Question intelligible, so I will conclude with a Motion. As we are approaching very near to the time when we shall have to consider the measure of the Government, surely we ought to have before us the best information they can give us. My hon. Friend has asked for what I think we are entitled to receive—namely, the figures which were supplied to the noble Lord and his late Colleagues to enable them to judge of the real bearing and effect of the measure that was to be introduced by the Government. It is obvious that out of the information laid on the table certain figures were extracted, embodied in some form or other, and submitted to the noble Lord. It is desirable that the House also should have that information before it. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Horsman.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think a Reform discussion would be very convenient to the House at this moment. Whatever information may come before the Cabinet shall be placed before the House. I believe, however, that in that information there is likely to be nothing very novel. At the same time, it is possible that some further information may be furnished to the House, and I undertake that it shall be in the hands of the Members very shortly.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: As I alluded to this subject on a former occasion, it is necessary, in order to make my own statement clear, that I should say that I understood, when certain figures were laid before the Cabinet, that they were figures which had been obtained from the Departments for that purpose, and that they were new. So I understood them; but, of course, in that I may have been mistaken. They were exceedingly scanty and few in number, and the investigation of which I spoke was mainly directed to comparing these figures which were sums total with the more detailed information contained in the voluminous Returns laid before the House last year.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.
(Mr. Hunt, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL.

  [BILL 12.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that while giving credit to his hon. Friend for bringing in a Bill of that nature, he could not but remember that it was no further back than 1862 that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) introduced a measure to amend assessments. That measure had scarcely yet had a fair trial, and it could hardly be known yet what the result of the valuations under it was, though he believed the result was eminently satisfactory. Those valuations had been made with a care and a disinterestedness which ought to receive great consideration from that House, and if that Act were amended very slightly it would effect all that the present Bill was intended to do. Before the valuations under the Act of 1862 had been sufficiently tested by practice, was it not premature to call on the House to legislate on the subject? Those who had great experience of this matter in his part of the country universally said I that this Bill was unnecessary, that it was, moreover, so complicated that it could not be carried out, and also that it was unjust to force upon them a re-valuation until the old system had been fairly tried. They went further, and maintained that until the old valuation had been fairly proved to be insufficient his hon. Friend ought not to have brought in that Bill. There were three main points in the measure which were totally different from anything they had had before. The first was the formation of a Central Valuation Board. Perhaps there might be in many counties and unions great differences as to the deductions made in these valuations; and when the Act of 1862 was under discussion he had himself urged that there should be laid down in it some definite basis for deductions as a guide in respect to all rates. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, however, said that could not be done, and it was not done in that Act. But, taking the country through, he believed there had been an anxious endeavour on the part of those who had to carry out that Act to arrive as

  1651
  far as possible at a satisfactory conclusion. When the Act came into force, in most counties a committee was appointed which went most carefully into the details of the measure, and into the subject of these deductions. And, although those committees could not, of course, by law enforce the rule as to deductions at which they arrived, yet, generally speaking, the assessment committees in each county had carried out the scale of deductions so laid down. He believed that the deductions had been fairly made, and that any necessary amendments might have easily been effected without introducing the present Act. The second novelty in this Bill was that they were to have surveyors of taxes introduced—a proposal to which great objection was entertained in the country. These surveyors of taxes were to have it in their power to revise, as it were, the valuation lists, and to say that certain things were not right, and that the rates must be raised. Those who attended appeals in respect to income tax knew that the class whose assessments were raised were the poor trades people, who would often rather pay than by appealing perhaps suffer damage in their credit. And if owners of property, for the benefit of their poor tenants or neighbours, consented to let cottages at the moderate rents of from £3 to £7, the surveyor of taxes might come and say the cottages ought to be put down at a great deal more, and thus one means of improvement would be checked. No doubt the surveyor of taxes might sometimes find out something that was wrong; but the odium and inconvenience that would result, would more than counterbalance all the advantage which the Treasury could derive from his appointment. The third and last novelty in the Bill was that there was to be an assessor. Now, he would ask, was it wise at this moment to incur the additional expenses which would necessarily follow the establishment of a Central Board and the appointment of assessors? This could not be done without placing on the land a heavy amount of additional taxation. Those were the grounds why he thought the Bill should not be hastily adopted. They had yet to learn that it was necessary, or that the old Bill had not worked well. If the old valuation of property throughout the country were generally incorrect he should be glad to afford what assistance he could to remedy it; but he firmly believed that it was every day becoming more developed and more accu-
  1652
  rate. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would not press on the second reading. He had heard that a Motion was to be made that it be referred to a Select Committee; and if it should be he hoped that it would return to the House so amended as to be acceptable to the country, which he did not believe it would be in its present shape.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that people were very apt, when a Bill affected both the landed interest and houses, to pay more than due attention to that portion which affected the landed interest. He rejoiced, however, that this Bill had been introduced, and by the introduction of Amendments in Committee he should invite the special attention of borough Members to the opportunity now presented to them for reviewing the system of taxation as between houses and land. Houses in towns were taxed half as much more highly than they ought to be when compared with the taxes imposed upon houses in the country, or with what the taxation would be upon a fair and equal taxation. Two important Returns had been moved for upon this subject, one showing what farm-houses in every county in England assessed at £20 really paid; and the other (a continuation of the Return moved for in 1863 by the hon. Member for East Surrey), showing the advance or otherwise of the assessment of land. He also wished to call the attention of the borough Members to the insufficient representation of boroughs in county Boards. Every union in a county was to have two delegates sitting on the county Board, while a borough was to have only one. He should give due notice of an Amendment he intended to move, in order that it might be fully discussed in Committee on the Bill.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had hardly imagined that the ingenuity of man could have contrived such a perpetual blister as this Bill must necessarily prove to be. Taxes and rates, as they all knew, were of themselves a great curse and nuisance. It was bad enough to have to pay them, and the being kept in a continual worry, in order that it might be ascertained how much they were to be, made them a ten thousand times greater curse and nuisance than they were before. The House should recollect that all valuations were but approximations to the truth, and if they strove to get to Chinese exactness they would set on foot an amount of worry which was ten thousand times worse to the people to bear, and to the recipients

  1653
  of the tax, than the possible good that could be got by it. What was the proposed machinery to do? There was to be a perfect revision every three years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) well knew how he had been pressed, with regard to the income tax, not to have the valuations too frequently made on account of the worry and trouble they gave. It was not long since the Secretary to the Treasury broke out very strongly against the officers of the Government as to their conduct in that matter. He (Mr. Henley) differed from his hon. Friend's opinion of those gentlemen, as he believed they had done their duty conscientiously between the Crown and the subject. The Bill before the House set on foot machinery which was to commence operation in the month of May in one year, and was not to finish until the month of June in the next. Then the matters so ascertained were not to be acted upon until the year after—the third year from the time of commencing—and then there were to be supplementary valuations at the end of every year. If all that did not worry people's minds, and set them against taxes and rates, he did not know what people could be made of. There was nothing more impolitic than keeping on a perpetual blister—and this was nothing less—of worry and irritation. It was necessary, they all knew, to pay taxes, but the less people were worried the better. Let them examine the Bill. Boroughs and counties had nothing upon earth in common in what they paid, so for as rates were concerned; and yet the Valuation Board was to be composed of two delegates from every union in a county and one from every borough. He thought the one delegate sent by each borough would not be in a very happy position on such a Board. [Mr. HUNT expressed dissent.] The hon. Gentleman shook his head, but that was one of the provisions in the Bill. There was no reason why the counties and boroughs should be brought together; they had nothing in common, and it was certain that county unions were not good judges of the amount of the deductions that ought to be made in the large towns and boroughs where the property was of a different nature. Then there was a new appellate jurisdiction; but though he had a very great respect for members of the bar, and a still greater respect for them if they were of ten years' standing, he thought that neither their education nor their ten
  1654
  years' standing made them at all conversant of the value of property in counties in which, perhaps, they had never set a foot before. But what was to happen? Any person who appealed was to go before them—the surveyor of taxes having power to appeal as well—and then, unless the contrary was proved, whatever the surveyor of taxes alleged was to be held conclusive. Suppose the surveyor said that A ought to be charged £150 instead of £140, A, in order to disprove that, must necessarily be at the expense of bringing a surveyor or somebody of that character to disprove the assertion of the surveyor of taxes, because, of course, it would be impossible to allow a man to prove his own valuation. The assessor could know nothing of the matter himself; he would have to rely upon the evidence given before him, and in that way a hard and grievous oppression might be brought to bear upon a man. How differently the matter was now treated. The surveyor, thinking that A or B was not properly taxed, made his charge, and the case was heard before four or five different gentlemen of the county who knew something of the value of the property surrounding them. In the Bill before the House it was provided that the assessor could not decide except upon evidence before him, which must be the evidence of surveyors of some kind or other, entailing a grievous expense, and if that evidence were not produced by the words of the Bill, the assessor was to decide according to the absolute dixit of the surveyor. He (Mr. Henley) could not help thinking that that would be a great injustice. In another part of the appellate jurisdiction it was provided that the appellant might claim a survey; but if upon that survey a "substantial" alteration were not made in the valuation, the man who claimed the survey would have to pay for it. But what was the meaning of a "substantial" alteration? Who was to come to an agreement as to what that meant? for it was quite as open as the matter of the valuation itself. All these things made him think the proposed alteration unnecessary. During the last two or three years the country had been going through a complete revaluation, which had not been without expense, the mere fees to the clerks of unions having been very heavy. People now wished for a little quiet. The ink was only just dry upon all the papers which had been written. There had been some few cases of appeal to the sessions, but

  1655
  they had been settled, and people had begun to hope for rest. Here, however, was a new thing, got by taxes out of rates. It was to re-open every question, and keep up the heartburn which would never end. It would take them a year and a half to get the machinery in order, and then at the end of the third year they would have to begin again, being in a perpetual worry all the time. He did not see what advantage was to be gained; in no possible way was it in the interest of the revenue of the Crown that the alteration should be made. It seemed to be proposed from what might be called a spirit of meddling, unless there were something behind of which this Bill was only the forerunner. He did not know what the feeling of the House was upon it; but if he had been here before he should have asked his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) not to have brought in the Bill before the quarter sessions had been held in the various counties, in order that they might all have had the opportunity of communicating with their constituents, and have been better informed on the matter than they were now. All the communications that he had had from the country had been adverse to the Bill. The Bill was thought complex, and it was considered that it would be a great worry, trouble, expense, and hardship to have the matter gone into again. He believed the Bill contained unmixed mischief.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, he was not sorry that the Bill had been introduced, as it might improve the position in which valuers now stood. He did not agree with it altogether, but it might be improved in one or two respects, and if it were referred to a Select Committee it might be made a very useful measure. The Valuation Boards appeared to him to have rather insignificant functions and to be somewhat cumbrous. With two members from every union in a county, in addition to the members from the boroughs, the Board might consist of from twenty to forty and even fifty members, which would form a sort of parliament in each county for the valuation of property. He had been very much disappointed in finding what were to be the duties of the Board, as the duties seemed very few, and one of them was objectionable. The first duty was that which affected the rate of reduction for the whole county in which the Board sat. That was a very simple matter, which might easily be adjusted by any committee of magistrates appointed by the quarter sessions. The Board were
  1656
  to organize nothing whatever as to the value of any particular tenement, but merely to take the valuation as laid before them by the different assessment committees. They ought to have more power—power to have the valuation of the whole county made by professional persons, under their own superintendence, which power might be given to them by a new clause introduced into the Bill. The exercise of such a power would be expensive, but the result would be really satisfactory and good. With respect to the Court of Appeal, he did not think a barrister of tea years' standing would be a likely man to possess good judgment in the matter he would be called upon to decide. He would have to decide on evidence on oath. But those deciding should decide on their own knowledge and judgment. He would much sooner see the quarter sessions made the Court of Appeal, for then there would be absolutely no expense—there would be no barrister's salary of £300 or £400 a year to pay. They found one parish where land was let at 30 s. an acre, and another where it was let at three guineas, merely because in the latter case it was cut up into small portions. He thought it was therefore essential to have some one resident on the spot to value the laud, who would really be able to form a correct judgment upon the matter.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid: Having for some years past taken much interest in the question now discussed, I am anxious to make a few remarks, and in so doing must ask the indulgence of the House. Not the less so, that these remarks must be confined to distinct and practical details deriving their interest from the importance of the subject itself. This, I think, it will be admitted to possess—as to very few this question can be a matter of unconcern. We all know what interest a debate on the income tax presents—with what satisfaction a remission of 1d. is received, and not unreasonably, for we all know that this comparatively small sum makes a very large difference to a very considerable class. Now, let us compare this tax with the poor rate. In this we have a tax falling upon some property as upon income—on profits—to an average amount, in agricultural counties, of 2s. 2½d. in the pound; in manufacturing, of s. 1s. 2⅔d. and throughout England, of 1s. 2d.; levied also in a manner confessedly unequal and unjust. I take the admission of the late President of the Poor Law Board as to

  1657
  this. In a recent debate he is reported to have spoken thus—
  "In my opinion nothing can be more unfair and capricious than the charge of the poor rate. … I do not express that opinion for the first time. I was acting on the original Commission for the Poor Law, and I was struck during that inquiry by seeing the extraordinary unfairness in which this charge for the poor's rate fell in various parts of the country—or on different persons—and the vast number who were totally exempt from such a charge."
  In this, therefore, confessedly, we have a tax most serious in amount, and falling with especial severity on property of a certain class, and claiming in such respect the particular attention of this House. It is true that this Bill does not fully open up the whole subject—that it takes cognizance only of a part; and as it is not expedient to raise collateral issues, to that part alone I shall direct my future remarks—namely, the assessment upon property as it now exists. Now, it may be asked, what necessity for revision exists? It is believed that under the Act of 1862 a great step towards the equalization of assessment took place. There is substantial ground for such belief. At the same time, it must be admitted by all who possess a practical knowledge of the operation of this Act that the improvement upon the old plan is but partial and incomplete. It is well known that the basis for valuation is by no means uniform, and that principles, altogether at variance with the terms of the Act, are commonly found to exist; and this, too, more as regards the estimated gross value than the net, concerning which much misapprehension exists. Let me say a word or two as to this. In assessment of land, let upon ordinary terms and tithe, as well as some other hereditaments of that class, no great difficulty exists. For this we have authentic documentary evidence in Income Tax Returns, Tithe Commutation, and the like. But when we assess property of another kind great latitude will be found to exist under the provisions of the Act. In houses let to profitable purposes, in offices, manufactories, and the like, the application of the principle is singularly inexact. The letable value less depends upon use, situation, and the competition of trade; so also in railways and canals, the total net profit of which is assessed as rent. Nothing can be less satisfactory than the assessment made in such respect. Then, again, under what circumstances were these assessments made in 1862? The Committee were new to their work;
  1658
  and it is not too much to say that two-thirds of the assessments were completed before they thoroughly understood the nature of the task. For total revision it was then too late. The lists also sent in by the parish officers were, in most cases, defective, and they themselves were incapable of the discharge of their task; while on the part of the Committee no absolute power existed to order valuations separately on the union account. This is partially remedied by the new Act; but I think that the Committee might themselves have larger powers in such respect. Now, let me afford the House an illustration of this. At the end of the first year I felt entirely dissatisfied with the work thus done, and in order to see if any common principle could be applied and worked out, I wrote to thirty-four unions to obtain the data upon which these gross values had been worked out. In more than half of these no definite plan appeared to exist, and in the remainder of instances no common agreement upon important points appeared. To reduce practice into precept no pains had been bestowed in any case, except in the rudest form, and to the worst possible common result. Let it be remembered also that these discrepancies chiefly affected the gross, most erroneously supposed to be beyond doubt. The nature of the appeals will show this. For instance, if we assessed land let for accommodation at rack rent at its actual annual value, we were told that to an exorbitant rent were added an excessive rate—a plea often admitted, though by no means sound in such a case—for it was clear that any remission we might make in such respect would, under such circumstances, only add to the possible rent. Again, that houses let to profitable purposes should be rated subject to such a supposed condition was a source of complaint, for it was hero assumed that the profits of trade were thus assessed. For this assumption some ground existed, under the want of specified basis, supplied by this Act. But if we refer to previous enactments, no doubt will exist upon this point, for under the statute of William the words—Rebus sic stantibus, convey a clear definition; and as referring to present conditions, are imperative in that sense. By the 55th clause of the present Act all uncertainty is at once removed upon these points, and the actual rental declared to be the minimum of the assessment to a rate. This will much conduce towards (uniformity of practice, and is based on

  1659
  a principle equal and just. The composition and construction of the Board proposed under Clause 6 deserve a few remarks. Against it has been urged the introduction of a new power over county finance, and the sanction it would seem to give to the principle of County Financial Boards. Now, against this principle it may, no doubt, with some truth be urged that it vests power in the hands of those who have no permanent interest in the expenditure of the rate; that their interest as ratepayers is only present, and after all not direct; that the landlord is, in fact, the payer of all rates. This, to a certain extent, is the case, and ought to induce some care in the provisions introduced, lest the undue preponderance of the less permanent interest place difficulties in the way of improvements of the more permanent class. In the present instance there would seem little danger of this, either as regards the function discharged, or the proportionate constitution of the Board itself. For myself, moreover, lot me candidly confess that I am not opposed to the introduction of this mixed element into county finance, for I believe that under some such provision as this Act contains a very valuable business element may be introduced, tending to a more careful administration, and often a stricter regard for economy than at present exists. One word as to the Court proposed of ultimate Appeal, upon which I must beg leave to express a doubt. Heretofore and up to this time these appeals have been subject to the jurisdiction of another Court, subject to an ultimate appeal to the Queen's Bench. This power it is proposed to remove, the officer appointed being paid out of the county rate in part. From the court of quarter session a most important function is thus removed in a matter especially concerning themselves. There should be good cause for this. To me it is a matter of regret, inasmuch as I do not think that it will fully meet the concurrence of those principally concerned, and will not fail to prejudice many against the Act. I shall not, however, in this stage press my objection to this clause. Finally, let me say, that having given some time and attention to the operation of the former Act, I must think the present measure well calculated to meet most, if not all, its defects. I must express my conviction that this will be the case. One hope, however, let me entertain, that it will not be
  1660
  the last reform applied to this matter of the rates; that Her Majesty's Government having thus bestowed their care upon the assessment to such excellent effect, will also not fail further to consider the incidence and accidents of the rate, and the present claims of the various properties thus assessed. Let there be also equalization in such respect. At present I will say no more, lest such matter be deemed irrelevant to the issue now sought, and thanking the House for their attention, I beg to express my concurrence in the provisions of this Bill, and my intention to afford it my suppart.
  MR. CHILDERShoped that, whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the machinery, the House would agree that the objects of the Bill were good objects. The first of these objects was to make the assessment of gross estimated rental whether for Queen's taxes, county rates, poor rates, and other parochial rates the same; and the second was to adopt some means to ensure uniformity in the deductions now made from the gross estimated rental for the purpose of arriving at a rateable value for local rates. He therefore hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and that the Government would consent to refer the Bill, after the second reading, to a Select Committee; because, however good the objects of the Bill might be, there were matters of detail, and indeed of more than detail, which to his mind were very objectionable, and which no doubt would be thrashed out in an inquiry before the Committee. The Bill proposed to erect a Valuation Board for four or five different purposes; but when one came to look into it, there appeared to be only one real duty of the Board—to render uniform the deductions from the estimated rental. At present they were not uniform. As had already been stated, even neighbouring unions embracing communities identical in character made most unequal deductions percent, and this, too, upon the same kind of property. That was an anomaly requiring to be remedied. Most of the other duties which it was proposed to impose on the Valuation Board were very small matters, and when the deductions were once settled the Board would have but little to do, and that could be well done by other existing authorities, what he would suggest was that the House should pass those clauses which

  1661
  constituted the Board, and that the Board should only meet once—say next year—to settle what the deduction should be for each county. Having done this, there would be no necessity to retain them in existence, and it might be left in future to the court of quarter sessions, subject, perhaps, to the concurrence of the Poor Law Board, to make any alterations that might be requisite in the rates of deduction. The Board would thus be brought into existence for the only useful function it could perform, and having performed that function, it would be left to the ordinary authorities of the county to make any trivial amendments. This course would dispense with all the clerks, treasurers, and permanent officers who would otherwise have to be appointed, and the Bill so modified would not, he believed, be distasteful to those who would oppose it in its present form. His hon. Friend proposed to erect a new tribunal in the shape of an appellate barrister or assessor, who was to hear the appeals which were now heard, with respect to Queen's taxes, by Local Commissioners, and with respect to local rates by the quarter sessions. He believed, however, these new Courts to be altogether unnecessary. They would involve an additional number of salaried barristers, and whatever his respect for the members of that profession, he was of opinion that a quite sufficient number were already employed in the public service. If a new jurisdiction were required, the appeals might be taken to the County Courts, the Judges of which, as barristers, possessed the needful qualifications, and were not over-burdened with work. He might also add that if the Valuation Board met next year for the purpose of settling a uniform deduction from the gross estimated rental as a criterion of rateable value in each county, there would then be sufficient material to enable the House to arrive at a uniform maximum deduction for the whole country. Holding these views as to the machinery of the Bill being both cumbrous in form and extravagant in duration, while admitting the excellence of its objects, he should offer no opposition to the measure provided his hon. Friend would consent to refer it to a Select Committee.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that if the suggestion of the hon. Member were carried out, all the clauses would be struck out, and nothing left but the preamble, as had been the case with a Bill last year. In-
  1662
  stead of going into the details of the measure, they ought rather to look at its principles. No Act was ever carried out more carefully than the Parochial Assessment Act. That measure had for three years worked very satisfactorily, and the doubt which existed as to the power of magistrates to make a county rate having only been set at rest last Session, he believed the deductions would be speedily equalized in every county. In all parts of the country assessment committees were appointed, who applied themselves to their work with the honest intention of organizing a successful basis upon which rating could be placed, and it was hardly just, after they had taken so much trouble, that they should be treated with so little consideration. The system of reductions organized by these committees would be equalized as soon as the county rating came into full operation. He hoped this Bill would not be pressed forward at so early a period of the Session. He thought that part of it relating to the appellate jurisdiction must be abandoned. The Valuation Board, even constituted with the modifications proposed by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), would be bad so far as this matter was concerned. The effect of the constitution of the Board in the manner proposed by the Bill would be that a half or one-third of its members would not attend its meetings, and that the work which was done would not be done by men actually resident in the neighbourhood. In the case of the assessment committees, on the other hand, they had the advantage of the labours of men living on the spot, and knowing every inch of the ground that was to be valued. The Bill was unfair to those who had devoted a large amount of time, trouble, and experience to carry into effect the Act of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers), and its machinery was complex. If the Bill passed, the overseers, the surveyor of taxes, the assessment committee, and the Valuation Board would all have to be called into operation before a deduction could be determined, and this was surely an exceedingly complex arrangement. Until some practical grievance was brought before the House to show that the former measure had not worked well, the present Bill ought not to be proceeded with.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, this was a most invaluable Bill, and he hoped there would be no delay in passing it, although it might, perhaps, be necessary, in

  1663
  order to settle its details, to refer it to a Select Committee. If the valuation of the county by the committee of the ratepayers and the magistrates were struck out, one of the best provisions of the Bill would be destroyed. For the last sixteen years such an improvement in the existing law had been advocated by different Members of that House, especially by Mr. Joseph Hume, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson). He regretted, when such a Bill as this was introduced by the Government, that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House should oppose it. If the Bill were passed, the duties imposed by it upon the committee of ratepayers and magistrates would become the nucleus of more important duties relating to highways and other county business, as those committees would be more competent to deal with financial affairs than were magistrates in county sessions, who sat as an irresponsible body to tax the ratepayers of the county. There was every reason to believe that a committee thus constituted would become important, uniting in itself the functions of Boards of Guardians and of the financial Boards of the counties; and that to such a committee taxing powers might be intrusted, which at present was impossible. The House could well deal even with the details of the Bill, without referring it to a Select Committee. It appeared objectionable to appoint any new officers, there being now county officers, whose time and position qualified them to fulfil the duties of assessor. It was a well drawn Bill, reflecting great credit on the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) who had been fortunate enough to propose it to the House. It did not supersede the Act of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers). The principle of deductions should be settled by the Act of Parliament, since it might become the principle upon which the franchise was to be based. There would be no difficulty in dividing property into various classes, and in fixing the proportion between rating and gross estimated rental throughout the kingdom.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that while he did not fully concur in every provision of the Bill, he tendered his best thanks to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) who had introduced it. A strong case had been made out for some amendments being made in the Union Assessment Act, and in the main the present Bill proposed to amend it in an acceptable manner. In
  1664
  one instance that occurred in his county a union had absolutely refused to rate itself at its proper value, and the Commissioners had been obliged to make the proper valuation, which had caused a considerable amount of ill-feeling. The Bill would lead to the assimilation of the basis of Imperial and local taxation. It would be a great benefit to the ratepayer if all his rates were based upon one uniform valuation. He did not think that the appointment of the assessor would be likely to lead to the expense that had been supposed; because, although the magistrates at quarter sessions acted gratuitously, the expenses of bringing up witnesses were very large. These expenses would be saved by the assessor holding his court at convenient places. The assessor would be paid according to the amount of work he performed, and not by yearly income; consequently, if there were no appeals, no expenses would be incurred. Upon the whole, he thought the Bill a good one, and he should give it his best support. He only wished that the Bill had gone further, and had provided one uniform scheme of deduction. The Return moved for by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) showed that deductions were so various as to render it difficult if not impossible to carry out such a scheme; but he might say that a somewhat similar proposal had been tried successfully in Gloucestershire. He should be glad to see the duties of overseer performed by some paid officer instead of by the existing machinery. He cordially supported the Bill, and hoped that it would not be referred to a Select Committee, as he thought that its details might be settled in Committee of the whole House.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he could not join in the wish expressed by the hon. Member that this Bill should not be referred to a Select Committee, seeing that great objections had been expressed either to its principles or details by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Bill had certainly come before the House in a hasty manner. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) who approved it, did so for a purpose totally opposite to that of its promoters. That hon. Member was anxious to control the expenditure in counties, and he seemed to see a prospect of this Board being summoned for one purpose and ultimately used for another. He (Mr. Seymour) thought that this Board would act as a Board for controlling

  1665
  the county expenditure. The House need not, however, think of any ulterior purpose when they had one already before them. It was urged in favour of the Bill that it would secure the action of the ratepayers with the magistrates; but anybody who knew the habits of ratepayers generally would know that they would decline to attend unless their expenses were provided for, so that the justices would have complete control in the regulation of the assessments. The great object of the late Act was to ascertain the real value of the property which was to be rated, and that object had been attained. It might have been supposed that these unions would not agree precisely as to the amount of deduction that was to be made in order to get at the rateable value. It was, however, something to have done so much towards ascertaining the real value of the property that was to be rated as was accomplished by the Union Assessment Act. Nothing could be more astonishing—considering how much alive the public were to the subject of the taxation of property—than that people should have allowed so large a revenue to be collected in so slovenly and uncertain a manner. The result of the new assessment operation had been to bring £15,000,000 annually to charge which had escaped before. Valuation had been left to ignorant the ant and irresponsible consequence was that property remained either not valued at all or not re-valued for years and years together. The property of persons of influence in many cases remained rated much too low. There were instances of property which had been raised in value 400 per cent, and there were parishes which had never been reassessed during the present century. Some persons had questioned whether that Act had worked well, and he supposed that the object of the present Bill was to make it work better. He had, however, not yet heard the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) state in what respect that Act had not worked well. He would not say it might not be improved; but he did not think the time had come when it could be said that the Act had not worked well, or that it was necessary to have so elaborate—he would not say so cumbrous—a measure to improve it. The Act had, at all events, given general satisfaction. Complaint had been made as to the absurd way in which the assessment committees, in some particular cases, had acted. Every
  1666
  facility, however, was given for re-hearing and appeals when the assessment was published, and every parish throughout the union was interested in questioning the assessment of the other parishes, and even the assessment of individual ratepayers in those parishes. The assessment committee could easily be called together to re-hear any particular case. He presumed that there was no obstacle to an appeal to quarter sessions, but those appeals had been extremely few. Hon. Members said that there were people who felt themselves wronged; but there had been no disposition to appeal, and if there had been, it was not always necessary to go before the quarter sessions, since there were special sessions four times a year where cases could be heard. He might be reminded, on the other hand, of the Return procured by the hon. Member for Buckingham, showing a considerable variation in the estimate which the committees made of the deductions necessary to be allowed to get at the rateable value. He did not know how these variations could occur, because the business was so very simple. The principle of deductions was to keep the property in that state of repair which gave the ordinary value. They got the ordinary value and then made the deductions for repairs and insurance. That was not a very difficult thing, and if parishes employed a professional man, or published what they did, there ought not to be any very great variation in the assessment. The 10th clause of the present Bill professed to discover some maximum or fixed rule of deduction. He did not see why, if that were possible, it should not be the subject of a simple enactment for the purpose. If it were not possible he did not know how by a conjunction of magistrates and ratepayers—but he thought practically there would be magistrates only—it would be possible to discover it. It would always happen, sometimes from error, and sometimes from corruption, that these differences would occur. A fixed rule would often be arbitrary and unjust. The decay of one class of houses would be more rapid than of another, and it might be proper to put 20 or 25 per cent on one class and 15 per cent on another. It would thus be unjust to fix a maximum, and always make this deduction for houses and that deduction for land. The real purpose of the Bill was to discover that rule or maximum; but it did not require a great, apparatus of barristers and others to dis-

  1667
  cover whether that rule had been observed. He supposed there would be fifty-two barristers, one for each county. [Mr. HUNT: The assessment would be paid for by the piece.] That would not shorten the work. The purpose of the Bill was a very good one; but seeing how much danger there might be in passing it in its present shape, and how little ground had been laid for complaint against the present Act, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) would not scruple to refer the Bill to a Committee upstairs.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Government had shown their appreciation of the value of the machinery of the Assessment Bill, inasmuch as-they had made use of it not only for the purpose of local taxation but also for purposes of Imperial taxation. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), whom every one in that House was, he felt assured, glad to see again in his place, had spoken of the Bill as complex, and as calculated to inflict a great deal of worry and vexation on the unfortunate ratepayers throughout the country. His right hon. Friend must, however, bear in mind that it was a measure in which it was proposed to combine three different systems of valuation in one, and that it must, therefore, necessarily consist of a considerable number of clauses. On looking through those clauses he would, at the same time, find that they formed as a whole a Bill of a much more simple character than their number would lead a person to imagine. In answer to the other objection advanced against it he must contend that, so far from tending to create worry, it would in a great measure remedy the vexation which now existed. It would sweep away a cumbrous and expensive machinery, and substitute for it something less complex and more effective. Let him, for instance, take the valuation list for the purposes of the Poor Law under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. From that list it would be found that there were two appeals—one to the local assessment committee, another by the overseers to the quarter sessions. Then as to the assessment for the poor rate there might be an appeal to the special sessions, then to the quarter sessions, and from that a case might be submitted to the Queen's Bench. Where there was no Highway Board, too, an appeal lay to the special sessions, from that to the quarter sessions, and thence to the Superior Court. In the case of church rates there was an appeal
  1668
  to the Ecclesiastical Court, while in that of the county rate there was an appeal in the first instance to the committee of justices appointed to fix the basis of the rate, and next to the justices at quarter sessions. With regard to the income tax, and the inhabited house duty, appeals under Schedule A and B must be made to the local Commissioners, a separate appeal being necessary in each case. It was, in fact, under the existing system possible to have upwards of twelve different appeals as to the value of the same property, and in those five cases the ultimate decisions might be at variance with each other—county rates, poor rate, highway rate, church rate, the assessment of the income tax under Schedules A and B, and the inhabited house duty. If in all these instances one assessment and one appeal were substituted for the present cumbrous machinery, how, he should like to know from his right hon. Friend, could the measure in which such a proposal was embodied fairly be characterized as one calculated to increase worry and vexation? It was intended to provide under the Bill that every overseer should make out a valuation list and send it to an assessment committee, and that that committee should deal with it as now. The Court of Appeal would not be as at present the quarter sessions, but would be altered. Much had been said as to the appointment of a Surveyor of Taxes; but he saw no reason why such an officer should not appear before an assessment committee as much as before district Commissioners. It was quite true that a Surveyor of Taxes would be a now apparition in the Boardroom of Guardians; but he would discharge there a very useful function, because, under the operation of the valuable measure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. P. Villiers)—as was abundantly apparent from numbers of letters he had received—there was a want of some person directly interested in putting up everybody's assessment to the proper amount—a want which the Surveyor of Taxes would supply. The introduction of such an officer before the assessment committee would, in his opinion, tend to secure a just assessment, not only to the property tax, but also to local taxation. The next question which arose was whether anything was required to regulate the scale of deductions to be made in reducing the rateable value from the gross value. The right hon. Gentleman said he had heard no evidence

  1669
  that satisfied him that fault was found with the mode in which those deductions were made at present. He, however, had seen plenty of evidence on the subject. From the Returns which had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham he had extracted a few of the more glaring cases furnished on the point, and when he mentioned them to the House he was sure it would be admitted that they did not hear out the view which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to entertain. In the county of Bedford, for instance, he found that there were the following variations in the percentages of deductions:—Land, 5 per cent the highest scale, 1 per cent the lowest; houses under £8, highest scale 30 per cent, lowest 10 per cent; houses at and above £15, highest scale 20, lowest 10. The county of Bedford was, however, not singular in regard to the variation in the scale of those deductions. In Gloucester he found the scale to be as follows:—Land, highest 10, lowest 5 per cent; land with buildings, highest 20, lowest 10; houses under £8, maximum 25, minimum 10 per cent; houses at and above £15, maximum 20, minimum 10. Again, in Lancashire, in the case of houses under £8, the maximum was 03, the minimum 15 per cent; houses at and above £15, maximum 33, minimum 10. He might go through many other counties to show his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that improvement was required with regard to the scale of deductions. In his right hon. Friend's own county, which he fully expected would be a model in that respect, he found that the deductions ranged from 10 to 1 per cent in the case of land in some unions, while in the case of houses under £8 the variation was from 35 to 10. Under such circumstances, he thought it was desirable that some greater degree of uniformity in the matter of deduction should, if possible, be established. To lay down in an Act of Parliament a uniform scale would, no doubt, be a very simple mode of meeting the difficulty; but to such a proposal he did not think the House would assent. The Government had therefore adopted what he conceived to be the best plan to secure uniformity ultimately by taking certain distinct areas. Some comments had been made with regard to the Valuation Board; but that was the very body which, in a great many counties, started into life when the Union
  1670
  Assessments Act came into force. The delegates from counties met to pass resolutions, and to fix a scale of deductions; but when they sent them down to the different unions, nearly every one of those unions refused to abide by the decision thus arrived at. It was therefore felt that they should be by legislation obliged to act upon the scale to which the delegates might agree. The present Bill attempted to attain that object. His hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) teemed to be of opinion that the Valuation Board would be a large machinery created for a very small purpose. It would, no doubt, be open to that criticism in as far as it would consist of a great number of members; but it was absolutely necessary that such should be the case, because it ought to represent all parts of the county, otherwise there would not be so ready an acquiescence in its decisions. He did not, however, think that it would be an expensive Board. He did not propose that the members should be paid; nor did he believe their meetings need be very frequent. There would, however, be a treasurer and a clerk, but of those it would be found in reality necessary to pay only one. The pay of the clerk would be small; and the whole expense of the Valuation Board would be so trifling as to be hardly worth taking into account, considering that they would get rid of a great deal of costly machinery and costly appeals. It was said that the Board might meet once, and then be swept away; but if a Board laid down a scale of deductions, there must be somebody to see that it was properly carried out; and who so fit for that purpose as the Board which laid down that scale of deductions? The process would be this. The Board would employ their clerk or an accountant to go through the list and see that their instructions had been carried out. They would then have a meeting, at which they would go pro formâ through the list, with the remarks of the clerk attached, and then affix their seal, whereby the valuation list would come into force. With regard to the Appellate Court, it must be remembered that at present there were different courts of appeal for different subjects. There were the District Commissioners with regard to Schedules A and B, and the county magistrates in quarter sessions as to the Union Assessment Committee, and some other local matters. It was no doubt difficult to find out what

  1671
  was a good Court of Appeal; but he had no hesitation in saying that the court of quarter sessions was not a good Court of Appeal for that purpose. He believed that most courts of quarter sessions would be exceedingly glad to be relieved of that jurisdiction. A court of quarter sessions was a fluctuating body, and if the appeal was a long one it would not be heard throughout by the same persons. An appeal to quarter sessions was also expensive. The witnesses had to be brought up to the county town; the parties had to appear by attorneys and counsel, whose fees had to be paid; and there were also hotel expenses to be incurred. In fact, they had a most cumbrous and costly mode of appeal, and when all was done they had not a very satisfactory court. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire said they, at all events, had some persons there who knew something about the matter; but, for his own part, he was not sure that was an advantage. [Mr. HENLEY: I spoke of the Commissioners.] Then, he had misunderstood his right hon. Friend; but there was this to be said about courts of quarter sessions—though that they might know more about the matter than the barrister who might be sent down, yet magistrates were but human beings, and they might sometimes know too much. When cases affecting property in which they were interested came before them, it was not impossible they might have a bias. He believed that courts of quarter sessions endeavoured to do their duty as fairly and as conscientiously as could be done; but when cases of that kind came before them, even where they had not a bias, they might be suspected of having one. The Bill proposed to substitute a barrister of ten years' standing for the court of quarter sessions; by that means, though he might have no personal knowledge on the subject, if they obtained a man of judicial mind to deal with these questions, they might expect to have more satisfactory decisions. As to the expense connected with having these assessors, it was not intended that they should be regular salaried officers, but that they should be remunerated for their services from time to time as those services might he required. If the Bill passed, they did not expect to have many appeals. They believed that the decision of the assessment committee would be accepted as final in almost every instance; but still, they must have some Court of Appeal, and the chairman
  1672
  of the Valuation Board would have the power of selecting a competent man with the consent of the Treasury. He did not say that that Appellate Court was the best that might be devised. It had been suggested that a County Court Judge should try these appeals; but a County Court Judge was only a barrister appointed in a different way, and he generally had some interest in property in some part of the county. Moreover, if he had these extra duties thrown upon him, they must give him some addition to his salary, which would involve considerable expense. However, the question as to the appointment of the court of appeal was not one of principle, but of detail. Indeed, many of the questions raised that evening were questions of detail. In the case of a Bill of that sort it was impossible that everything could be considered before it was introduced; and the Government were much indebted to many hon. Gentlemen for the suggestions they had made. He agreed with the recommendation which had come from the front Bench opposite, that it would be proper to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and he hoped that those hon. Members who took an interest in that subject would be kind enough to serve on the Committee, from whose labours, he trusted a sound and valuable measure would emanate. If the second reading were assented to, he would take an early opportunity of nominating the Select Committee.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he wished to state what had taken place in the county of Bedford on this matter. Before it was attempted to carry into effect the Act passed by the late Government, a Committee was appointed composed of gentlemen from each union in the county, in order, as far as they could, to arrange what should be the basis of deductions. Upon the basis so arranged they had acted as closely as they could; but if a Bill with the cumbrous machinery of the present one were passed, they could never get at the absolute value, but only at the approximate value, in a parish. What they complained of was, that having acted upon the existing Act, of which they had yet had but little experience, and having arranged their unions, and there being few appeals, a measure like this was now brought in to upset all that they had done and put them to increased expense. The proposal to appoint barristers did not appear acceptable to the House, It did not

  1673
  seem to him to be necessary to call in the Surveyor of Taxes to make the local committees honest. He knew the case of a landlord in his own county, who let his estates below their value, and when the tenants were warned by the Surveyor of Taxes that the land was underlet, rather than have a re-valuation made they paid the difference. The officers of the revenue department, he thought, interfered too much already in the counties. He was glad that the Bill was to be referred to a I Select Committee, though he had the greatest doubts whether it could be converted into an acceptable measure.
  MR. READsaid, with reference to a remark that had been made as to nobody who was not a justice being likely to attend at a Valuation Board, that the cattle plague committees of different counties were chiefly composed of the justices and the principal ratepayers, and he believed that the ratepayers were just as attentive and assiduous in discharging their duties as the justices. A great deal had been said in that debate about the variety in the deductions made from the gross estimated rental in getting at the rateable value; but nothing had been said I about the way in which the gross estimated rental was at present ascertained. He believed that that was just as irregular as the other. If any one asked him which was the better criterion of value, he would not hesitate to say, notwithstanding all the variety exhibited in the deductions quoted by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt), that rating was much better than rental.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  And, on Wednesday, March 13, Select Committee nominated, as follows:—Mr. Hem, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. POULETT SCROFE, Colonel BARTTELOT, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Mr. WENTWORTH BEAUMONT, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. NEATE, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. READ, Mr. CORRANCE, Mr. GRAVES, Colonel DYOTT, Mr. WILBRAHAM ECERTON, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. DUNLOP, and Mr. DENT:—Five to be the quorum.

METROPOLITAN POOR (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Earle.)
METROPOLITAN POOR (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 66.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 31 (Charges for Maintenance.)
  EARL GROSVENORproposed an
  1674
  Amendment for the purpose of requiring that the expense of the additional buildings to be erected under the Bill should be ultimately defrayed out of the common fund.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Amendment could be more appropriately discussed when later clauses having some relation to the question of the expense of the new buildings came before the Committee.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 32 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Building for Dispensary.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to ask, what was the meaning of the term, "Poor Law Board," and also of the term, "by order?"
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the President of the Poor Law Board was joined in the Commission with others, who signed the general orders affecting parishes and unions. Three of them, at least, had to sign. Orders were in two forms, common orders being signed by the President and countersigned by the Secretary; whilst, as he had said, there were some which must be signed by three of the Commissioners. He, as President of the Poor Law Board, was responsible for everything done.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Election of Committee.)
  EARL GROSVENORproposed an Amendment with reference to the nomination of a portion of the Boards of Guardians.
  After discussion, Earl GROSVENOR said he would withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the question raised by it should be dealt with on the bringing up of the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Number, Qualifications, &c, of Committee.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he moved the omission of the word "Qualifications." He objected to the Poor Law Board, or, in other words, one individual, having the power to decide on the qualification of a guardian.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought it was immaterial whether the words were retained or omitted, because the qualifications of guardians had been

  1675
  to a certain extent denned by a preceding clause.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he did not see why the hon. Member should object to what would require a guardian to be properly qualified.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, as a definition had already been given of the word "Qualifications," it was unnecessary in this clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Appointment of Dispensers, &c.)
  MR. VANDERBYL: —I have already expressed my approval of this Bill; but while I admire the sagacity with which the numerous conflicting interests have been adjusted, I cannot allow what I consider a serious omission to pass unnoticed. In Clause 43, now before us, it is stated that the dispensary committee shall appoint "proper persons" to be the dispensers of medicine, &c. Now, it seems to me that a nonprofessional committee is scarcely competent to decide upon the qualifications of a dispenser. An applicant for the appointment might be a very proper person in their eyes, and still be greatly deficient in his knowledge of pharmacy. Not long ago the managers of the Bedford Infirmary appointed as a "proper person" to fill the office of dispenser a lad sixteen years of age, son of one of the nurses. This boy nearly poisoned several patients, and made so many blunders that the appointment had to be cancelled. This case is fully reported in The Bedford Times of 22nd January last, but I will not trouble the House with the details. I am happy to say that in the majority of our metropolitan hospitals such an appointment could not have been made, as all our best hospitals now require their dispensers to be duly certified as competent under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act of 1852. The army medical department also requires that its dispensers shall be duly qualified by certificate; and I can see no reason why the sick poor should not be protected in a similar way. I notice that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. H. Russell) has an Amendment on the paper similar to mine, but in different words. I am unwilling, however, to restrict the choice of the managers, and I would therefore move that the words "proper persons" be omitted, and the following words inserted in their place:—
  1676
  "Persons on the medical register, or duly certified as competent under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act of 1852, or the Apothecaries Act of 1815."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was as fully impressed as was the hon. Member with the importance of appointing only properly qualified men to the office of dispensers. Instead of the hon. Member's Amendment, however, he thought it would be better by inserting the word "Qualifications" a little lower down in the clause, to bring that subject under the cognizance and supervision of the Poor Law Board.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he should support the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he thought that the object which the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought to attain would be secured by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. THOMAS CAVEsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, because he thought that such an opportunity of giving the pharmaceutical chymists of England that status to which from their education they were entitled, and which they found no difficulty in obtaining on the Continent, ought not to be lost.
  SIR JOHN SIMEONsaid, that their object was not to establish the status of any particular class, but merely to provide a good safeguard, and that he believed would be attained by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board.
  MR. VANDERBYLcould not see why the suffering poor should be treated with less consideration than soldiers; a qualification similar to that which he proposed being insisted upon in dispensers of army hospitals.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he was authorized by the gentlemen who were chiefly concerned in the question to state that they were satisfied with the proposal of the Government.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, the Committee wanted to satisfy, not the chemists, but the poor.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Motion of Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, the word "Qualifications" inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Provision and Dispensing of Medicines, &c.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he moved the omission of the words "in receipt of relief," the effect of which would be that medicine and medical assistance might be claimed by the poor indiscriminately if they required them.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he hoped the clause would be rendered more clear. Undoubtedly parties should receive medical relief from the parish doctors or dispensaries without being in the receipt of other relief from the parish.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the clause merely provided that those coming to the dispensaries as paupers were to have medicines dispensed to them on prescription.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that there were persons who only required medical relief.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that if they received medical aid they would be paupers.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the Committee would not do its charity by halves.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there were plenty of dispensaries where medical assistance could be obtained without rendering the recipients paupers.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would suggest that the words "such of the poor as require relief" should be substituted for "in receipt of relief."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that what the persons would receive was medical relief, and when they received medical relief they were paupers to all intents and purposes.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, that they should agree to give medical relief to persons who were not in a position to pay for medical advice, without making them paupers or causing their homes to be broken up to go into the house. The consequences arising from the illness of the head of a family might be cut short in the beginning by receiving medical relief, and the parish money might thus be saved by rendering it unnecessary to receive, not only the father, but the rest of the family into the house.
  MR. BRADYsaid, they should give medical relief in the most unexceptionable manner they possibly could. He should support the Amendment by analogy to the Medical Charities Act of Ireland.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the case of Ireland was altogether different
  1678
  from that of England, inasmuch as an Irish medical man would not undertake the care of any patient with a first fee of less than a guinea. He would endeavour to meet the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite by substituting the words "entitled to relief" for "receipt of relief."
  MR. NEATEsaid, he had thought of proposing that alteration, but on further consideration he was afraid it would increase the difficulty.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY MR. GATHORNE HARDY moved the insertion of the words "entitled to," instead of "in receipt of."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 45 (Appointment of District Medical Officers.)
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he had ventured on a former clause to make some suggestions which had been received very courteously, and he was now going to make two other suggestions, which were not new, but had been frequently made by, perhaps, the highest authority on the subject, Mr. Chad wick, the only surviving member of the Royal Commission which drew up the Poor Law. That Commission was one of the most enlightened and able that ever sat, and so long ago as 1834 proposed principles on the subject of education, which, Parliament being afraid of doing too many good deeds at once, left for adoption by generations to come. He regretted Mr. Chadwick was not himself a Member of that House; there was scarcely any one whose services would be more valuable on many points of administrative improvement. The first suggestion he had to offer was this—if they wished the poor to be effectually taken care of, the medical officers appointed should not be in private practice. It was not to be expected in the ordinary run of human affairs that public duty would not be neglected for private practice. It was eminently honourable to the profession that public duties were so well attended to as they were; but medical officers should be under no temptation to postpone their public duties to private practice. Could any one suppose that in a time of epidemic and disorder, when their services would be most required by the poor, that they would not be under the temptation of postponing their public duties for their private practice: One had heard of people advertis-

  1679
  ing for perfection in a schoolmaster for £40 a year, which they were just as likely to get as a Board of Guardians were likely to get a competent medical officer for £100 a year. The other point was as to the mode of the appointment of the medical officers. He thought we might well adopt the practice of the hospitals of Paris, which were the best managed in Europe, where the medical officers were appointed by a medical board after examination; and he would suggest whether it would not be in the power of the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons, in combination with the Civil Service Commissioners, to have a system of competitive examinations in order to test the capacity of those medical officers who were appointed. It was clear that the House was not at present prepared to adopt this suggestion; but he laid it before the House and the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that it might be taken into consideration on some future occasion. He did not move any Amendment on the subject.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he did not think that in the country it would be possible to get men to take the duty if they were prohibited from having a private practice as well. In the metropolis they had been obliged to give up all private practice in certain cases, where sufficient employment was given to them in connection with the Poor Law. Some instances had come under his notice where medical men having very urgent cases in connection with the Poor Law Board had not given them that preference which they ought to have done, considering that they were receiving a regular salary for their services to the poor. At the same time, he was bound to remark that in these cases the salaries were so small that the medical officers could not be much blamed for endeavouring to get money from other sources. The second suggestion of the hon. Member was one which opened up a large question, and which, therefore, he could not discuss on this Bill. He had had no experience of competitive examination of medical men, and did not believe it had ever been tried in this country. He could not say that he should be prepared to give his adhesion to such a system. It would lessen the responsibility of those appointing these officers. Under the existing system, if complaints were made to the Poor Law Board, they were always attended to, and rigorous measures were taken in cases
  1680
  where these had been neglected. In his opinion the present checks were sufficient.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Westminster, who was so well informed on subjects in general, should venture to speak on this subject, on which he had no information whatever. The hon. Member ought to visit "Westminster Hospital, Guy's, and St. Bartholomew's, where he would find the most eminent men in the profession attending without receiving one penny of salary. If they were to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion and not allow private practice they would only get young men fresh from the schools to accept the appointment of medical officers, men who had no experience whatever, and who would as soon as they had obtained the requisite experience throw up their situations and resort to private practice. As to competitive examination, the hon. Member did not seem to be aware that all physicians, and, still more, all surgeons, passed through an examination as severe as that of any other in the kingdom.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that as the suggestion which he ventured to make was an administrative, not a medical, suggestion, he did not see why he should be prevented from making it, though he was not a medical man. As to the question of remuneration, he had said before what he now repeated, that if his suggestions were agreed to, the remuneration to medical officers must be considerably raised. Whatever money was spent in this direction was most usefully employed, because they ought to have the best medical assistance that could be obtained for the poor.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 46 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 49 (Addition of nominated members to District Board.)
  SIR T. F. BUXTONsaid, he wished to move the omission of certain words in this clause which authorized the Poor Law Board to nominate to be members of the district Board such persons as they might think fit—
  "From among Justices of the Peace for any county or place resident in the district of the school, or from among ratepayers resident in that district, and assessed to the poor rate therein on an annual rateable value of not loss than forty pounds, or partly from one and partly from the other."
  Their duties would be of no easy kind, as they would have to visit the workhouses,

  1681
  and to visit the schools, which were often, and ought to be always, out of London. Now, the nominated guardians were to be either justices of the peace or £40 ratepayers. As to the first of these, he remarked that justices of the peace were very rare in the North and East of London, and it might as well be recommended to nominate the Lord Chancellor. As to the £40 ratepayers, no doubt they could be had; but they could only give their services in the evening, being busily engaged in their various occupations through the day. The care of the schools would, therefore, devolve upon the clergy, who were already overworked. He objected to the choice of the Poor Law Board being thus restricted to classes of persons who did not reside in the poorer quarters of London, and thought it would be preferable for the Poor Law Board to exercise their own discretion in selecting persons to be members of the district Boards. He therefore proposed that the clause should be amended by striking out the qualification required for members of the district Boards.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he objected altogether to the principle of the clause, which placed too much power in the hands of the President of the Poor Law Board. He objected to the principle of nominated members altogether, but he thought they ought either to adhere to the elective or nominative principle, and not attempt to mix up the two.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the clause was drawn up in accordance with the principle that had regulated the Poor Law ever since the time of Queen Elizabeth. He hoped that the clause would be agreed to as it stood originally.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that a large number of the principal metropolitan schools were removed from London to the country, and he objected to the nominated members of the Boards of management being taken entirely from the districts in which the schools were situated. They had abandoned a great constitutional principle by giving up even one-third of the members to be nominated by the Government. He would support the clause, because he did not like the nominative system, and these qualifications imposed at least some restrictions on the powers of the Poor Law Board.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 50 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Basis of Contributions.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that the rateable value of the metropolis was £14,700,000. This was spread over-thirty nine unions and parishes; of which fifteen unions had been re-assessed under the Union Assessment Act, leaving twenty-four of the wealthiest parishes which had not been so re-assessed. The latter included Kensington, Paddington, Chelsea, St. George's, Hanover Square, St. Margaret's, and St. John's, Westminster, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and St. James,' Westminster. If those parishes were fairly re-assessed the estimated total rental of them would be much greater than the sum at which it now stood. The time of their original assessment went back almost beyond the memory of man. Hence they escaped their due share of the public burdens. The same was the case with the nine great parishes and unions of the West of London, with a rental of £3,500,000, of which only one—that of Fulham—had been re-assessed. He thought the Bill should contain a clause providing that every parish which had not been re-assessed under the new Assessment Act should be forthwith re-assessed. It was only due to the poorer districts, and those which had fairly carried out the Assessment Act, to place the rating on a uniform basis. Every one must have expected that such a union as that of Poplar would have got some pecuniary advantage by this Bill; but the fact was that Poplar would have to pay £2,332 in addition to its present amount. He could only account for this by the fact that the union was one of those which had been reassessed. The City of London did not object to paying its full share towards the maintenance of the poor of the metropolis; but his constituents did think that, with a view to equal justice for all, every union and parish should be reassessed on the same plan.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that several parishes in the metropolis were rated higher for county purposes than they were for parochial. St. George's, Hanover Square, was rated to the amount of £200,000 more for the former than for the latter. The clause provided that the sums to be paid by unions and parishes under this Act should be constituted on the rateable value according to the valuation lists, or where there were none—

  1683
  "According to the latest poor rate for the time being for the union or parish, or otherwise as the Poor Law Board from time to time direct."
  If those latter words were sufficient to enable the Poor Law Board to adopt the valuation for the county rate when it was the higher one, he had no objection to make; but if not he thought words should be inserted to provide that the higher of the two valuations should be the one adopted.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that this was the meaning of the words in question.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he objected to those words, because he considered that they conferred upon the Poor Law Board an almost autocratic power, far beyond what could be advantageously intrusted to them. In approaching the words "equality of assessment," it was unjust that in some parishes there should be such diversity as from 50 to 75 per cent, and at rack-rent. He should move in the place of the words "or on such other basis as the Poor Law Board may from time to time direct," to insert words to the effect that the assessment should be made "upon the estimate or basis on which the county rate is assessed."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to ask what construction was intended to be conveyed by the phrase "or on such other basis as the Poor Law Board may from time to time direct?"
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the words in question were introduced by him into the clause for the very purpose of meeting the difficulty which had been pointed out by hon. Gentlemen. It was, beyond all question, unfair that in some parts of the metropolis the assessment should be made upon the poor rate, in others upon the county rate; in some cases on a recent, in others upon a very ancient, assessment. The phrase was expressly intended to remedy the inequality in the assessments, by giving the Board jurisdiction as arbitrator between different unions. It would not be fair that the City of London and other unions which had gone to the expense and trouble of new assessments should be more heavily taxed than parishes where nothing had been done in the matter for many years. He wished to give the Poor Law Board the power of determining the best assessment for particular parishes and unions. He was happy to hear that the City of London was willing to bear further bur-
  1684
  dens, and thought this showed a very proper spirit, especially as the City had recently claimed 700,000 persons who did not sleep, though many of them doubtless were employed, within its limits. He proposed by these words to give the Poor Law Board power to deal with these inequalities in the same manner as they were dealt with in the case of the police rate. The House would remember that when he introduced the Bill he intimated his intention—which he hoped to carry out at no great distance of time—to bring in a Bill for the uniform rating of the whole metropolis, so that the present provision was, to a certain extent, one of a temporary character.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the parishes had secured the exemptions which had been referred to, because they had united at the time of the Act and threatened to combine against and have it rejected if their exemptions were not respected. They could not, however, maintain those exemptions (conferring the power of fixing the basis for assessment) except under their Local Acts, and unless he was mistaken one of the provisions of this Bill was to do away with those Local Acts, which would make them at once subject to the Union Assessment Act.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he objected to the words in the clause referring to the Poor Law Board, and suggested the insertion of other words, which would enable them to fix the assessment on the basis cither of the poor rate or of the county rate. He suggested that the word "otherwise" should be left out, and the words "or on such other basis as the Poor Law Board may direct," introduced.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would have no objection to that.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would suggest the introduction of a clause compelling a re-assessment in the parishes where it had not yet been made.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers), that when the Local Acts of the parishes were got rid of they could be dealt with; but he did not think that it would be advisable to introduce a clause in the present Bill compelling reassessment in those parishes.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) would get rid of the difficulty.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he

  1685
  objected to the discretion proposed to the Poor Law Board.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he thought the county rating was less to be relied on than any other.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Clauses 56 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 59 (Determination or Variation of Contracts with Workhouse Medical Officers.)
  MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to ask what was to be the basis of compensation in cases where, for instance, the Board might appoint a resident medical officer in place of an outdoor medical attendant?
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, the clause, as he understood it, would empower the Poor Law Board to dismiss the officers of any Poor Law district, on grant of compensation at their discretion, though those gentlemen had hitherto held office for life, except in case of misconduct. Whatever the confidence which those officers felt in the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), they did not like to be in the power absolutely of an unlimited line of his successors. They would accordingly be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would either sanction an appeal or a reference to arbitration, so that they might not be at the mercy or discretion of a single officer.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it would obviously be necessary, in case great changes took place under this Bill, to have the power of dealing with gentlemen already in possession of office and emoluments. Many medical men had distinct contracts, and in their cases compensation must, of course, be calculated according to the terms of their contracts. Many of them, however, who were in the enjoyment of private practice would, of course, be unwilling to take the position of resident medical officer, or to continue as superintendent medical officers, to the asylum or workhouse infirmary, and this clause had been drawn with the simple object of doing them justice. For what the hon. Member had been good enough to say of him he felt obliged, but he trusted that any one hereafter occupying the same official position would be equally ready and anxious to do justice; remembering also that for every act his successors would be responsible to that House. Had any hon. Member suggested that the Poor Law Board should be relieved of this responsibility he should have been most willing to
  1686
  entertain the suggestion; but the Bill had now been a considerable time before the House and the public, no such Amendment had been suggested, and he therefore felt bound to accept the responsibility. He was quite sure that, with the assistance which any hon. Member at the Poor Law Board could command, there would be no difficulty in arriving at a right decision.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he believed that the introduction of the system now proposed would deteriorate the class of medical attendants.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that those who wished to elevate the medical profession placed their claims too high. If a doctor joined a union, and reserved the right of going away when he pleased, it was too much for him to say that he held an office for life, and ought not to be removed without compensation. If a man claimed an office for life he ought to be liable to serve for life. The right hon. Gentleman in inserting this clause in the Bill only followed the precedent laid down in all other cases where a reform was sought to be effected, and it was necessary to remove certain officers.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that instead of claiming for life, a large proportion of the medical officers were in the position of tenants-at-will. Their duties were performed in a most trustworthy manner, and their claims ought to be taken into consideration.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to make the decision of the Poor Law Board communicable by "general order?"
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that no order could be made without instructions from the person properly responsible at the Poor Law Board—that was the President—and it did not carry the matter any further if the papers were sent round in a box for the signature of the President's colleagues. As soon as they saw his signature there, they added theirs as a matter of course, and there was an end of the matter. Last year he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) as having signed a particular order some years ago, but he shook his head, saying it was very likely, but that he knew nothing of it.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that the claims of medical officers were sufficiently met by the provision for compensation. One part of the clause had attracted considerable

  1687
  attention out of doors, and that was whether in the appointment of resident medical officers, the oversight of the first-class medical outdoor officers would be dispensed with. He trusted that no such practice would be introduced.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was intended that the resident medical officer should not be one of the highest class, but capable of attending cases as they came in. The infirmaries would still be under the supervision of one having the highest professional knowledge; in fact, it was intended to copy the plan pursued in hospitals.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he thought there was a great distinction between a general order and a simple order. If the former were signed by three Cabinet Ministers who knew nothing of its contents, they must repose great confidence in those who drew it up. Though the powers given by the Bill were very useful, they were very great, and some of them remarkable. There were powers for buying land, for taking buildings, for selling houses, and for giving compensation, all to be executed by the simple order of the President who represented the Poor Law Board. If there was a mode of making the President's act more solemn than the mere signing of his name, he thought that mode ought to be adopted. Every order should be very carefully considered before three Cabinet Ministers were called upon to sign it. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Sir Harry Verney) a very useful one.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet with respect to the dismissal of an officer, would be introducing quite a novelty. At the present moment an officer was dismissed on an order signed by the President of the Board. He had not had much experience in general orders; but in signing orders as the President of the Poor Law Board, he had always felt most deeply the responsibility resting upon him, and had always studied the papers on any particular matter very carefully before giving directions for the preparation of an order upon it. He thought the responsibility of the President, who was the responsible officer so far as the House of Commons was concerned, was sufficient in these matters.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 60 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 63 (Account at Bank of England.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the representatives of the Bank thought its wording disrespectful to them; accordingly he moved that the clause should be altered, so as to require the Receiver to open an account with the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 64 agreed to.
  Clause 65 (Collection of Common Fund.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE,said, it appeared that under this clause the Poor Law Board could, under their seal, make the various parishes pay up their contributions. He took it to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), that the unions or parishes should pay the whole amount of their quota into the common fund after each half-yearly audit. That, however, seemed to involve a larger amount than some of the parishes would be able to pay, because the entire £350,000 would be paid away by the parishes to the managers of the asylums and dispensaries before they could get repaid from the common fund, so that they should really pay twice before they could get recouped. It appeared that in the western districts the parishes would have to pay in £33,285 and receive out £2,625; in the northern districts pay in £14,000 and receive back £1,200; in the central districts pay in £28,000 and receive back £15,000; in the eastern districts pay in £2,300 and receive back £35,900; in the southern districts pay in £8,500 and receive back £31,000; so that the amount paid in would be £86,215, and that received back £86,215 likewise. He wished to leave it open to the Poor Law Board to make arrangements not to call on certain parishes in such a way as to oblige the latter to spend thousands in interest for raising the money. He thought some arrangement might be made by which the parishes which had spent the money in paying the managers of the asylums, dispensaries and schools, might be credited with the amount disbursed when they came to pay their quota to the fund.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in point of fact, the rates would have to be raised twice—once from the union and once from the common fund; but by a slight alteration

  1689
  in Clause 70 that difficulty could be obviated.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was quite true the unions would have to raise the first half-year. They would then be recouped all they had a right to from the common fund; and for their next half-year they would only raise what was sufficient. It would not be necessary for parishes afterwards to raise these very large sums, because they would have money coming in from the common fund. He should be happy if any practical way of doing that differently were suggested.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that according to the provisions of the clause, the parishes would be constantly in advance of the common fund, and this would weigh very heavily on the poorer parishes. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman made some alteration in the clause.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Receiver would be able to make arrangements with the parishes for the payments.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, the rate for the first half-year would amount to £170,000, and as that must be all raised beforehand, the interest, which at 5 per cent would amount to something-like £8,000, would have to be thrown away—in other words, an additional rate of 3d. in the pound would have to be made.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 66 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 69 (Application of Common Fund.)
  EARL GROSVENORsaid, he had to move an Amendment. The object of his Amendment was to put these buildings upon the common fund. They were not at all specified in the Bill, and he wished them to be placed upon the common fund.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 14, line 31, after the word "say," to insert the words "for the purchasing, hiring, building, repairing, fitting up of buildings for the asylums, and any sum in the nature of rent or other compensation payable by the managers to the guardians, in respect of the use for the asylum of a building previously used as a workhouse: Provided always, That all estimates and contracts made by the managers shall be submitted to the Poor Law Board, or to an officer by it appointed, for approval, before any agreements are signed."—(Earl Grosvenor.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted the President of the Poor Law Board would have no hesitation in accepting this Amend-
  1690
  ment, considering the quarter whence it came. If it were proposed in a spirit of hostility, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in opposing it; but, considering that it had reference to charges which would fall upon the mover, it indicated an extreme desire on his part to bear his full share of the burdens of the metropolis. He was not aware that any one objected to the Amendment, and the Members for the City had expressed their readiness to bear their share of the burden. The right hon. Gentleman might have been justified in limiting the Bill at first, but he was now justified in accepting the proposal of the noble Earl, which was highly honourable to him, considering the position which he occupied.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that no one in the House appreciated more highly than himself the honourable intention of the noble Earl; but he had received deputations on the subject, and he felt bound to resist the Amendment, because it seemed to him to be unjust in itself. A great number of unions had gone to great expense in getting their buildings into good repair, so that with very little additional expenditure they would be able to provide the accommodation they required. It was not only a question of the present condition of these workhouses, but large numbers of lunatics and others would be removed, and many wards would thus be set free for other uses. There were twenty-four of the unions and parishes that had done much to supply efficient buildings, and Parliament was bound to take into consideration the expenditure they had freely incurred to supply what was needed in their own district. The parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, had expended enormous sums upon their workhouse, and when the lunatics, &c, were removed, the present building would provide accommodation for their own sick. St. George's-in-the-East had also done much in the same direction. What he objected to in the Amendment was that a new burden would be cast upon such parishes, if other parishes which had not expended so much as they ought to have done were to profit by this expenditure. Several parishes had been suspending their buildings for a short time in order to see what took place in that House, and complications of which the House was not aware would occur, which would render the difficulty of carrying out the Bill much greater than it would otherwise be. So far he had limited the power

  1691
  of the Board to what was reasonable and fair, but that would be the case no longer if these buildings were to be used as asylums for the whole of the metropolis. If one of these buildings was used for the whole metropolis then the Poor Law Board could make the whole metropolis pay for it. If these parishes had not sufficient accommodation let them build for themselves, and not come upon those who had expended large sums for these buildings.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that in judging whether the Amendment should be carried a great deal would depend upon whether the metropolis were or were not to be one district for asylum purposes. If one it would be immaterial whether the expense came out of the common fund or the individual fund. But if the districts were to be numerous, and differing in size and wealth, the difference of placing the expense on one or the other fund would be very great. Under the 6th clause the Poor Law Board would have power to form the districts as they pleased, and afterwards to remodel thorn; and in this way the Board would be able to make an approach as near as it chose to an equalization of the rating. He took the proposal to be that the whole expense of the asylums should be put into one common pot, so to say; and then remuneration would have to be given to those parishes which had already provided asylums, and in this way justice would be done. He would ask whether it was intended to place the small pox and fever hospitals as well as the asylums on the common fund?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, his view was that with respect to lunatics, fever, and small pox patients this was a metropolitan question, and he would make the district equal to the whole of the metropolis, with asylums conveniently situated east, west, north, and south. When one asylum was full they must be sent to another, but they would all be managed by one body. But with regard to other classes of the poor it had never been his intention so to act. Many of the parishes were of large size, and some had already provided either a separate hospital for their workhouses or a hospital which at very little expense might be made available as such. Those who had upon their own ground provided all that could be required ought not to be called upon to contribute towards places that were not so provided. He was not aware how the metropolis would be di-
  1692
  vided, and he could not, therefore, answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman. Some of the parishes which were among the very poorest had provided everything upon their own ground, and he did not think that justice would be done to them under this Amendment.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that he was surprised that any difficulty had been found in this matter. Originally, it was intended that the expense of erecting these asylums should be borne by a common fund, and why that intention was not adhered to be could not understand. What would be the operation of the Act in the case of several poor parishes, say on the Surrey side of the water, having to build an asylum for the purposes of the Act. Would they have to pay for it out of their own funds? Some arrangement was desirable whereby an equitable adjustment of these charges might be made in respect to the building of asylums. These districts would probably be formed in one case by joining several poor parishes together, and in another by the union of several rich parishes; but the duty of building asylums must fall at the outset indiscriminately upon the rich and poor. This would involve a serious outlay in the case of the latter, and he hoped that some arrangement might be made for throwing the cost upon the common fund.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was of opinion that if the proposal of the noble Lord, were rejected, a serious burden would be thrown upon the poorest and most unhealthy parishes.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had understood that the President of the Poor Law Board would make one district for the purpose of providing these asylums so that the charge would extend over the whole of the metropolis; but in that case some provision ought to be made for equitable adjustment in the case of parishes which had already erected buildings at considerable expense.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the clause would not be altered. He knew some districts which had built largely for the poor; but under the proposed Amendment they might be treated as if they had done nothing.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, those districts would be entitled to compensation.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSK: But the compensation might be neutralized by charges for new buildings.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided;—Ayes 35; Noes 97: Majority 62.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he rose to move the addition to the clause at page 14, after line 31, of the following words:—
  "For the maintenance in a sufficient number of duly regulated hospitals, and under the care of trained nurses, of the sick poor; together with the cost of training nurses."
  His object was the cure of all the sick poor of the metropolis. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept that Amendment in the interest of the sick poor. The treatment of the sick poor in the metropolis was so bad as to have roused public indignation, and to have called for the introduction of that Bill, which it was desirable to make, as far as possible, a perfect measure. It was the common interest of all the inhabitants of the metropolis that all the sick poor who could be cured should be so, and the charge for that purpose ought to be defrayed from the common fund. The President of the Poor Law Board had admitted that the cost of the lunatic poor of the metropolis should be borne by a common fund; and what reason could be urged why the charge of the sick poor of the metropolis should not be borne by a common fund? All sick cases should be taken out of the category of pauper cases. It was to give effect to that principle that he proposed this Amendment.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he gave every credit to the hon. Baronet for his benevolent intentions; but the carrying out of his principles would be injurious rather than beneficial to the sick poor. The Amendment was entirely inconsistent with the framework of the Bill. The effect of the Amendment would be to bring-about what the hon. Baronet himself would deprecate—namely, a levelling of the sick poor who had hitherto not been relieved by the poor rates with the vicious and degraded poor. That would be one of the greatest wrongs that could be done to those of the sick poor who were distinguished from paupers. As the Poor Law Board was not yet prepared to supply trained nurses to the metropolitan hospitals no charge could be put on the rates for nurses, because it was only nurses who had been trained like those trained by Miss Nightingale in respect of whom the ratepayers could be charged. It was, of course, desirable that nurses should be duly trained;
  1694
  but who was to decide when they were so? He rejoiced that there was a prospect of obtaining efficient nurses, and that there would be the means of training them; but if he accepted that Amendment, he could not have the power of paying any nurses unless they had been trained, which in many instances they had not been. His desire was to treat the sick poor in the workhouses with humanity in every respect, taking care that they should, as far as possible, be free from physical and moral associations calculated to do them harm.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL GROSVENOR EARL GROSVENOR moved, in section 2, after the word "smallpox" to insert "cancer or syphilis."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was no occasion for any new hospital for cancer. The number of cases were so few that it was scarcely worth while to throw them on the common fund. He had a report from a workhouse to show that out of 476 cases there were only two of a cancerous kind. In another workhouse out of 463 cases there were only two cases of cancer. In a whole month, in forty workhouses of the metropolis, there were only nineteen cancer cases. It was most undesirable that such cases should be brought to the workhouses at all; they should be brought to places where they would get surgical treatment. A great many of the workhouse authorities had sent patients affected with the other disease referred to to the Lock Hospital. It was necessary to treat such cases separately. It was objectionable that a person of excellent character with an ulcerated leg should be placed in a ward with a person afflicted with the other disease, and brought into connection with persons with whom he would never wish to associate. He did not think this was a class of patients that had any particular claim on the common fund. If they could keep those persons in until they were cured there would be some advantage, but they could go in and out as often as they pleased. At no time did their number in the workhouses exceed 150.
  EARL GROSVENORsaid, he thought unless the Amendment were adopted that it would be impossible to keep the Lock patients separate from the rest. Would it not therefore be better to put those patients on the common fund in order to insure that object? The fact of the unions having subscribed to the Lock Hospital, showed the necessity of keeping

  1695
  these cases separate. He would not press the Amendment as far as cancer was concerned.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that two objects which had been confused, though quite distinct in themselves, were aimed at by the establishment of the common fund—the one to relieve the poor parishes, the other to secure better treatment for the sick. The question was why, if fever and small pox were cast upon the common fund, should not cancer and syphilis also? The cases were very numerous or they were not. If they were very numerous, then the burden of providing for them would be very heavy if left upon poor parishes; if they were not, the additional expense that might be cast upon the common fund would not be much.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 70 to 78, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 79 (Addition of nominated Guardians.)
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, that the elected guardians were decidedly averse to this power of nomination on the part of the Poor Law Board, and its exercise was likely to create great dissatisfaction. It would practically set aside the present Boards of Guardians. He hoped that the clause would be omitted.
  MR. BUTLERsaid, that by the principle of this clause a blow was struck at local government. The largest parishes in the metropolis were without resident justices of the peace. In St. George's-in-the-East there were few persons rated at £40 a year, and 21 per cent of that large parish were absolutely receiving relief at the present time.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the ex officio and nominated guardians, taken together, should not exceed one-third of the full number of elected guardians, or they might have no ex officio guardians. He did not see why they should have both ex officio and nominated guardians.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the effect of the clause would be to make the Poor Law Board guardians for the whole metropolis.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, his constituents on the south side of the water were highly satisfied with the Bill as a whole; but they entertained a strong objection to this clause, which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw.
  SIR JOHN SIMEONsaid, he trusted that the President of the Poor Law Board
  1696
  would not withdraw the clause. The poor felt that the Poor Law Board was their protector, and the real guardian of the poor.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought the clause unnecessary, inasmuch as its object would be sufficiently met by the existing law, which made justices of the peace ex officio guardians. If this clause were persisted in the effect would be to ultimately to do away with guardians altogether.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he considered the clause to be objectionable, dangerous, a great blot on the Bill, and a serious inroad on representative Government, and he wished to ask if it were really essential to the Bill.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he wished to ask if it were worth while risking the popularity of the measure for the sake of the clause. Boards of Guardians, who had hardly any power left, except in relation to the outdoor poor, would be quite as fit to inspect asylums, &c, without nominee guardians as with them.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that as the Poor Law Board would have power to nominate one-third of the managers of dispensaries, asylums, and schools, the additional power of nominating one-third of the guardians would practically give the Poor Law Board more than one-third of the power of control, and that no provision was made for the nominee guardians going out of office.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the clause was entirely permissive; the word was not "shall" but "may." It was inserted because of the special duty the guardians had to perform in reference to the asylums. It might happen that in some districts there might be no district asylums, but a hospital or infirmary confined to a particular union. Having asked for nominees in the case of the managers, it was thought only right to ask for the permissive power to nominate guardians in large unions. If, however, the Board were well supplied with ex officio guardians, he should not think of forcing nominees upon them, and there need be little apprehension that the power of the Poor Law Board would be abused. If the power of nomination were to be given to the Poor Law Board with reference to managers, it seemed more important that it should be extended to guardians than to dispensary committees, upon which he understood there was some anxiety to have nominees.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, nothing had been said for the ratepayers in this question. He thought a due consideration of their interests should induce the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this clause. He upheld the principle of representation as opposed to nomination. In the words of the popular song, he would say, "Oh, woodman, spare that tree!"
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that in any event the number of nominated members would not be allowed to exceed one-third of the whole.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he thought the Committee were really much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the care he had bestowed on this Bill. He believed it would effect great and permanent good; but this clause would go far to nullify its beneficial effects. If the Bill, excellent as it was, applied to the whole country, it would be simply impossible to carry it with such a provision; but in such cases the metropolis was always victimised. The clause introduced a perfectly novel principle, that of nomination, in the case of a body which, to a certain extent, would possess taxing powers.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the suggestion which he had made?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had no objection to the clause being amended to the extent suggested by the hon. Member.
  An hon. MEMBERsaid, if the clause were applied to the whole of England, the right hon. Gentleman would run great risk of losing this good Bill. In fact, the clause ran counter to the principle of the constitution, and allowed the nominees of the Poor Law Board to override the will of the representatives of the ratepayers.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he differed entirely from the last speaker, and thought the experiment of allowing perfectly impartial persons to interest themselves on this subject ought to be encouraged. He sincerely thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 27: Majority 65.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, it was of great importance to prevent the dissemination of infectious and contagious diseases by the conveyance of sick persona
  1698
  to asylums in ordinary vehicles. Properly constructed carriages ought to be provided for the purpose, and, indeed, this principle had already been recognised by Parliament in regard to parochial matters. Under the present system be believed all kinds of conveyances were used; but this practice was obviously objectionable and ought to be put a stop to. He therefore moved the insertion, after Clause 28, of the following clause:—
  "Where the asylum is provided for the reception and relief of the sick, every such asylum shall be provided with a hospital carriage, of such a pattern as the Poor Law Hoard shall approve, for the conveyance of persons suffering from smallpox, fever, or other infectious disease."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought that, under the 20th clause, everything which the hon. Gentleman desired would be provided for. That clause was to the effect that all necessary Fixtures, Furniture, and Conveniences should be provided, and he thought those words would meet the case. The suggestion of his hon. Friend was a most excellent one, and he believed it would be carried out under the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Preamble agreed, to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.

SUGAR DUTIES BILL— [BILL. 37.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
SUGAR DUTIES BILL— [BILL. 37.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. HUNTstated, that in consequence of some arrangement respecting the drawback upon sugar between this country and Holland, the third reading of the Bill would be postponed to this day fortnight.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday, 25th March.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.