Commons Sitting of 22 February 1869

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Printing, Mr. Ayrton added, Sir Sydney Waterlow appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Civil Offices; Sale of Liquors.
Ordered—Sale of Liquors *; Rateable Property (Metropolis); Rateable Property; Ecclesiastical Titles.
First Reading—-Sale of Liquors* [10]; Rateable Property [11]; Rateable Property (Metropolis) [12]; Ecclesiastical Titles [13].

IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN SHEEP AND CATTLE.—QUESTION.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to remove the obstacles that now impede the importation of Foreign Sheep and Cattle? Since he gave Notice of the Question an important change had been made in the regulations affecting the importation of foreign sheep. He would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman who replied to state precisely the effect of the change, and whether foreign sheep were to be brought into a separate market? The new Order did not affect foreign cattle, and the obstacles to which he alluded were still in existence as regarded them and their reception at separate markets.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could state exactly the effect of the existing regulations with respect to the importation of sheep. The Order in Council which had just been issued revoked an Order in Council which was issued on the 20th of August last year, and the Order of revocation would take effect from Friday next. Consequently, the importation of sheep would be placed in the same position as it was before the Order of August last. The effect of that

155
Order was that unless sheep arrived in the same vessel as foreign cattle they might be landed at any port where the landing of sheep was now permitted, that was generally at ports of entry; and, if upon examination they were found to be healthy, they might be removed or sold without restriction; but if they were imported in the same vessel with foreign cattle, they were subjected to the same regulations as those which affected foreign cattle. The Order of last August was issued in consequence of the Government being informed that the sheep-pox was at that time raging in Holstein, in Schleswig, and partly in Holland—countries from which we were in the habit of importing sheep. The Government were now informed, that sheep-pox was confined within comparatively small bounds in North Germany, had probably disappeared in Holland, and did not exist in any other country from which we usually imported sheep. It was believed to exist to some extent in Italy and Russia; but that was comparatively unimportant, as our imports from those countries were very small. Since the 12th of October, 1868, no case of smallpox had been detected in any foreign sheep coming into this country; and taking that fact into consideration, and also the fact that in Northern Germany the Government regulations were very stringent, and a complete cordon was drawn round the infected districts, and further that the import of sheep into this country had been very much diminished during the operation of these Orders, the Government felt that the restriction could hardly be maintained any longer. From the 1st of September, 1867, up to the second week of February, 175,421 sheep were imported, and from the 1st of September, 1868, to the present date the number imported was only 97,927; and we knew that simultaneously with this reduction of imports the price of mutton had been rising. The Government was satisfied that the danger now was small compared with what it was when the restriction was imposed, and they therefore thought it right to take it off. With regard to the importation of foreign cattle the Government had now had an opportunity of looking at the Bill brought in by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu), because, although it had only just been printed, it was almost a verbatim copy of a Bill
156
which, the present Government found in the office. The Government did not feel that they could altogether adopt the arrangements of that Bill, and it was their intention to bring forward a Bill of their own, believing, as they did, that legislation upon the subject was still necessary, and believing also that it was desirable that that legislation should affect animals that might be suffering not merely from the rinderpest, but from other contagious diseases. This was the opinion of many gentlemen connected with the agricultural interests; and the Bill of the Government should be laid on the table before the date fixed for the second reading of the Bill of the noble Lord.

THE MERCANTILE MARINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If he expects to be able this Session to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws affecting our Mercantile Marine?
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, it was the intention of the Board of Trade to introduce such a Bill. The late Government took some steps towards putting the Bill into shape, and it was now in the hands of a draftsman. His hon. Friend knew that the Bill would contain an appalling number of clauses, and that the subject was one of great difficulty. It was therefore the intention of the Board of Trade, when the Bill was sufficiently put into shape, to submit it to a number of gentlemen who were interested in the question, and if possible to make it in some degree complete before it was introduced into the House, and at that time the opinion and advice of the hon. Member would be gladly received. The Bill would be laid on the table of the House in the course of the Session; but he should be sanguine indeed if he were to hope that it could pass this Session.

IRELAND—GRAND JURY LAWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session any measure for revising the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report of a Select Com-

  157
  mittee of this House, which sat during the Session of 1868 on Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland)?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he had prepared a Bill which would substantially carry out the recommendations of the Committee over which his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had presided. That Bill was in the hands of the draftsman, and if there should appear to be any prospect of passing it in the course of the present Session, he should be most happy to introduce it; but it was impossible that he could as yet give any promise upon the subject.

PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, On what day it is proposed that the House should adjourn for the Easter Recess, and for what period?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had not at present any absolute proposal to make to the House on the subject; but the putting of the Question afforded him an opportunity of stating an arrangement which had occurred to him as calculated to promote the convenience of hon. Members, and. he would mention it in order that hon. Gentlemen might make their feelings known. We had this year a concurrence of two circumstances—we had a very late meeting of Parliament and a remarkably early Easter. It therefore occurred to him that it might be convenient to make a sort of exchange between the Easter and Whitsuntide vacations, by shortening the former and fixing the latter early and lengthening it in proportion, so as not to defraud the House on the general result, and to provide for a longer vacation, when hon. Members should have done more to earn it, and at a more congenial season, which would render it more enjoyable. Unless he had reason to suppose that this arrangement would be inconvenient and disagreeable, his impression was that in the course of a week or ten days he should make a proposal for its adoption.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1867—REGISTRATION OF HOUSEHOLDERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. EUSTACE SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of
  158
  Her Majesty's Government to take any steps towards clearing up the doubts which exist in the minds of many persons, and especially in those of Revising Barristers, as to what constitutes a house within the meaning of the Reform Act of 1867?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that when the matter was discussed in the course of the Session of 1867 it was found to be attended with very considerable difficulty, and it might be desirable that some further attempt should be made to clear up the law with respect to it. He had been informed that the records of the proceedings of the Revising Barristers during the last autumn would not afford them much assistance in that direction. That might be owing to the rapidity with which the work of the revision of the lists of voters had then to be conducted, and to the fact that in the course of the revision no point that could be avoided had been dealt with; and under these circumstances he thought it was a matter for consideration whether it would be wise on their parts to attempt to legislate further upon the subject during the present Session, or whether it would not be expedient that they should wait for the experience of the next registration, which would be carried on with the usual amount of deliberation. On the whole, he leant to the impression—although he did not mean to express any positive and absolute conviction—that it might be expedient for them to postpone dealing with that particular matter until another Session. He was still, however, ready to consider whether a different course should not be adopted, and whether, if the House should determine on making an inquiry into a number of points connected with our Election Law and the system of registration, it might not be desirable to include in the investigation the point which had been raised in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. That was a matter which remained entirely open.

ARMY—THE YEOMANRY CAVALRY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of Government to dipense with the services of the Yeomanry Cavalry; if not, whether they are to be called out for permanent duty this year?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was happy to be able to inform his hon. Friend that the Government had not formed any intention of dispensing with the services of the Yeomanry Cavalry; the usual provision for them would be found in the Estimates about to be presented.

  CUBA—IMPRISONMENT OF A BRITISH SUBJECT.—QUESTION.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the case of Alexander M'Niel, a native of Paisley, who has been confined in a damp prison in Cuba for several months on a charge made by a negro that he had been engaged in casting bullets and making lances for the insurgents, which he denied; and, whether he will take the necessary steps either to have the charge proved or to obtain his release?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that he had made inquiries on the subject, but he was sorry to say he had received no information as yet. He would communicate with Her Majesty's Consul General at Havannah with respect to it.

  IRELAND—PARDON OF FENIAN CONVICTS.—QUESTION.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty that the Royal clemency should be extended to persons suffering imprisonment or penal servitude for offences of a political character in connection with Ireland?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the important subject to which his hon. Friend's Question referred, had met with the anxious attention of the Government. They had felt it their duty to examine most carefully the list of prisoners now undergoing penal servitude on charges of treason and treason-felony, in connection with the Fenian movement. They had examined those lists with a view to a ascertain whether, in their judgment, the clemency of the Crown could be extended to any of those persons. The general result of that examination had been this—that among those prisoners there were some who
  160
  might, with perfect safety to the public peace, be discharged forthwith. The class of prisoners to whom he referred might be described as partly young men, hot-headed men, who were led in an excited moment into criminal acts, for which they were now suffering; men, some of whom might be described as the dupes and tools of others; men incapable, as far as could be ascertained, of doing mischief hereafter as leaders in any future insurrectionary attempts. The number which the Government believed to come under such a description, and whom they thought might safely be discharged, was not inconsiderable. He would tell the House the number exactly as they now stood. Excluding the military convicts, whom the Government held to be in a very different position from the others, and whose cases had not been taken into account—excluding the military convicts, there were eighty-one prisoners under sentence of penal servitude. Of these forty-two were now in Australia and thirty-nine in Great Britain. It was proposed—acting on the rule that he had described, and which had been rigidly applied by a very close scrutiny into the case of each prisoner on the list—it was proposed that of these, forty-nine should be unconditionally discharged. Of these forty-nine there were now thirty-four in Australia and fifteen in Great Britain. That would leave thirty-two prisoners still to undergo their sentence, of whom nine were in Australia and the rest in this country. But he should tell the House that this list of thirty-two prisoners included almost all the main founders, leaders, and organizers of the Fenian movement; it included men who were deeply responsible for the attempted revolution of the last two or three years, and men whom the Government and the Lord Lieutenant felt it would not be consistent with their duty to discharge, or whose freedom would be compatible with the public safety—men, he might add, with regard to whom the Government had no reason to believe that they might not, if discharged, attempt again to renew their unhappy and criminal, although desperate enterprise, and to whom, therefore the Government, while rejoicing as they did, and as Lord Spencer did, that they had been able to reduce the list so largely, felt that the clemency of the Crown should not be extended.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYasked, whether the prisoners to be liberated in Australia would be left there or brought back to this country at the expense of the Government?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would prefer answering that Question to-morrow.

THE CONVICT GEORGE ROBERTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONrepeated the Question he had asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on Friday, as follows:—Whether he has seen a statement in the police report, as reported in The Times of the 17th instant, to the effect—
  "That at the Southwark Police Court a man named George Roberts, aged sixty-five, was charged on remand with being in the area of a certain house for the purpose of committing a felony; that further evidence was given by Richard Kemp, one of the warders at Wandsworth, who said that the prisoner was one of the oldest burglars in England, many years ago he was cast for death, and that sentence was commuted to transportation for life; that he received a ticket of leave, and had since been twice transported for life, and liberated with license; that at the September Sessions of the Central Criminal Court in 1866 witness was present when prisoner was tried for burglary, and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour, and that he believed that he had since been convicted in the country. Mr. Burcham sentenced him to three months' hard labour for being in enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose."
  Whether that statement, as reported, represents the facts accurately; whether, if accurate, those facts are in accordance with, or contrary to, the existing state of the Law; and, whether in either alternative he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps to remedy such an anomalous and extraordinary state of things?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that a few minutes before leaving the Home Office, he received the result of inquiries which had been made into the matter. The statement to which the hon. Baronet; referred was not strictly accurate. Although the history of the prisoner was sufficiently eventful, it was not true that he had been sentenced to death, or that he had been twice transported for life, or that he had ever received a ticket of leave. He had been first convicted in 1837, not for burglary but for stealing in a house; and a sentence was passed upon him—which was not unusual at
  162
  that period—namely, of transportation for life; in 1842 he was found in England under another name, having escaped from the colony, and was again sentenced to transportation for life. He escaped a second time, and was found in England in 1851, again with another name, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. It appeared he had worked out that sentence, because the next record of him at the Home Office was in 1866, when he was convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for eighteen months for a burglary. Of course, his previous sentences to transportation were not known at this time. Since then he had been twice brought up as a vagrant, and received each time a sentence of a month. It was obvious that upon the last occasion the sentence of fourteen years would have made no difference in his punishment; but the fact that he had escaped was altogether unknown until the statement was made by the warder. The story was a remarkable one; but he was desirous that the House should understand that this man had never received a license, and that his successive escapes were due to himself and his own merits, and not to the neglect of the Home Office.

THE CONVICT RICHARD BONNER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALTERinquired of the Home Secretary, What answer he had made to a memorial forwarded to him from the Justices of Berkshire containing the following curious statement:—
  "That in the year 1831 one Richard Bonner was tried and convicted at Oxford, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation; that at the Oxford Lent Assizes, in the year 1851, the said Richard Bonner was tried and convicted of highway robbery, and sentenced to transportation for life; that, in 1863, the same Richard Bonner was convicted at the borough of Reading, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment; that, at the expiration of such last mentioned term of imprisonment, the said Richard Bonner, having been previously officially reported as a license holder, was sent back to Millbank Prison, but, notwithstanding this, he was again (in 1868) convicted of crime in this county, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and again, at the expiration of that term, sent back to Millbank Prison. Your memorialists submit, that, independently of the social aspects of the case, it is a hardship upon the county of Berks that the convict in question should have been a burden upon it for the space of two years and six months after he had been sentenced to transportation for life as above set forth?"
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he would read the

  163
  answer he had forwarded to the memorial; it was as follows:—
  " The burden of maintaining a license-holding convict during his term of imprisonment for an offence committed while he is at large is imposed by the existing law upon the county in which his conviction took place. Unless sentences for life are to be absolutely, and under all circumstances, irremissible, the hardship of which the Justices complain must occasionally occur. Previously to 1864 the punishment of transportation or penal servitude for life was inflicted more frequently than at present, and the liberation of life-convicts on licenses, after twelve years' imprisonment, was not unusual. Since 1864 the sentences of life imprisonment have only been passed in the gravest cases, and by a regulation made by Sir George Grey in 1866 the minimum time at which each case could be considered, except under special circumstances, was twenty years. Each case would then be considered on its own merits. The case of Richard Bonner suggests a reasonable doubt whether a convict for life who while at large on license commits a fresh offence, thereby proving that he is unreclaimed and irreclaimable, ought ever to receive a second license."
  It was worthy consideration whether where a man on ticket of leave had been convicted of a subsequent offence it ought not to be in the power of the Judge to re-commit him at once to Millbank, or one of the Government convict prisons. But, as the public interest was very much alive to this subject, it might be well to explain why he considered that there might be special circumstances under which a person sentenced for life might have his sentence occasionally revised. A case which had occurred within the last few days would illustrate some of the difficulties under which a Home Secretary was placed. On the same day a petition reached him praying for remission of part of the sentence in the case of two persons who had been convicted for precisely the same offence, which was an attempt to murder. The attempt was deliberate, and in each case there was a narrow escape. The offenders were persons not previously criminal, but were moved to this violent action by jealousy. They were tried by different Judges, and one man, who had attempted to murder his wife, received a sentence of penal servitude for twenty years; the other, who had attempted to murder a man of whom he was jealous, was sentenced to imprisonment for life. With respect to the person who had been sentenced to twenty years, in the ordinary course of events, he would receive a license after fifteen years and four months, provided his conduct had been good. But, if that
  164
  were so, it was quite clear that the other person, who had been committed for life for a similar offence, ought to have his case considered. It was obvious, therefore, that there must occasionally be circumstances which would induce a man of upright feeling, in the position which he had the honour to hold, to remit some portion of a sentence for life.

CRIME PREVENTION BILL.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of stating that it was not his intention to proceed that evening with the Bill which he had given Notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce. Her Majesty's Government had taken into consideration the representations which had been made in both Houses with regard to a division of labour, and it had been thought most convenient that this Bill should be introduced into the House of Lords, where his noble Friend (the Lord Privy Seal) would, in the course of a day or two, bring it in.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

  THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, some days ago this House determined to avail itself of an opportunity of testifying its loyalty and affection to the Throne by unanimously passing a Motion that the Address in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne should be presented to the Sovereign by the Whole House. But on Friday evening I received a communication from Her Majesty at Osborne, in which Her Majesty expressed her deep concern—in truth, she used a stronger expression—that the serious—indeed, the alarming—illness of His Royal Highness Prince Leopold rendered it impossible for her to quit him, and placed it out of her power to name any period when she could receive the Addresses of this and the other House of Parliament. I, at the same time, received a communication from Sir William Jenner, that the complaint under which His Royal Highness was labouring was the same as that which, on one or two former occasions, had placed the life of His Royal Highness in extreme jeopardy. This illness, Dr. Jenner explained, was such, that it was impossible to predict what

  165
  course it would take; and, as the medical adviser of Her Majesty, he could not recommend that any plans could be then formed for Her Majesty's quitting Osborne, nor could he name a time when such plans could, with confidence, be entertained. Sir, under these circumstances, I felt it my duty to make a communication to the House, and I came down for the purpose; but, unfortunately, I believe the House had within five minutes before closed its Business and adjourned. These communications were followed on Saturday by others to the same purport, stating that, though all things were going on favourably, yet the matter being a critical one, and circumstances remaining the same, it was impossible for Her Majesty to name a day for the purpose of receiving the Address, and in consequence she was obliged to abandon the hope she had entertained of receiving it in person. Under these circumstances, it is my duty to move that the Order which was made by this House on a former day be discharged, with a view to the Address being presented in the manner which is usual in reply to a Speech delivered by Commission.
  Motion agreed to.

  POLITICAL PENSIONS FOR CIVIL OFFICES.—RESOLUTION.
  Resolution considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise to propose a Resolution for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and extend the provisions of certain Acts relating to what are commonly known as political pensions, and the object of this Motion particularly is to bring under the consideration of this House certain alterations which we think might with advantage be made in the Act by which political pensions are regulated—an Act passed in 1834. Before that period the subject of political pensions was one which caused much difficulty and dissatisfaction. There was no rule applicable to them, and transactions of an irregular character, and which were not governed by any law or system, were continually occurring. The period of the Government of Earl Grey was probably among the very best in our history so far as regards the mature consideration which was then given to administrative
  166
  questions and the amount of sagacity which was brought to bear on them, and the Act of 1834, which laid the foundation both of a superannuation system and of a method for the regulation of political pensions may, I think, deservedly be regarded as an Act of high authority. But, of course, with the changes of circumstances, it will naturally occur that a measure of that kind is found in process of time to require amendment, and Parliament has thought it wise upon a later occasion to develop and otherwise to alter this portion of the Act which relates to pensions affecting what is commonly called the permanent Civil Service, for the sake of distinction from that portion of the Civil Service which is political. I now propose, after the experience of thirty-five years, certain changes in those clauses of the Act which relate to political pensions. Thirty-five years is, indeed, no short period for the consideration of such an Act, and the alterations of our arrangements which have occurred in that period—I mean our arrangements with reference to the organization of the Government—have been very considerable. There are two points to which the alterations I propose will apply. In the first place, there is in the Act of 1834 a certain mixture of non-political with political pensions. The second Secretary to the Admiralty, and all the Under Secretaries of State, whether political or non-political, are placed on one and the same footing as to pensions, and difficulties have arisen in certain cases in the administration of the Act with respect to some officers of that class which it is manifestly desirable to obviate for the future. With respect to the system of pensions established by the Act, the House may be aware that it is peculiar in many respects; but when I so describe it, I do not mean on that account in the slightest degree to disparage the provisions of the Act. The Act, however, takes a view essentially different—and in that respect I think it is quite justified—of the position in regard to pension of the political officer and of the civil officer who is not political. The civil officer who is not a political officer is presumed, after his term of service (subject to the conditions of the Act, and on the supposition of his good conduct) to have a right to a pension. The political officer however is not presumed by the Act to have anything that can be called

  167
  a right to a pension. The political pensions which are contemplated by the Act appear to hare been intended by the Legislature to prevent the public inconvenience which might arise from the discouragement of men of capacity, but not of great fortune, from engaging in the public service if this were to happen, that those who had been called to fill certain stations, and to hold a certain social rank as servants of the Crown, were, after filling those offices with the various responsibilities attached to them, and possibly after conferring great services on the country, to be left in such a condition, by no fault of their own, but it may be in consequence of their own self-denial in devoting themselves to the public service, that they might be destitute of adequate means for supporting their social station. For this purpose the provisions of the Act were framed, and on this principle. In the first place, there was a limitation of the amounts of pension which might be given by the Act, according to the ranks of the offices to which they referred. In the second place, there was a limitation of the number of years during which any person must have served in order to qualify and obtain eligibility for pension. In the third place, there was an absolute limitation on the number of pensions which might be granted and might be in force at any one given period in the different classes established by the Act. In the fourth place, there was a limitation, which was likewise absolute, that no political officer could take a pension under the Act except after having made a declaration to the effect that it was necessary with a view to that reasonable support of station which the Act contemplated as desirable. And, in the last place, there was this condition, that the pension, subject to all those prior stipulations, should be granted at the discretion and upon the responsibility of the Executive Government of the day. As respects these conditions, I do not propose to alter the root or basis of any one of them. There might, I think, be some modification in a portion of them, which would tend, however, rather to the reduction than to the augmentation of the number of pensions contemplated by the Act. The bearing of those conditions upon one another, numerous as they are, constitutes a subject that is rather complex, on which it will not, I think, be
  168
  possible for the Committee or the House to form a judgment until a Bill is printed and placed in their hands. But the main reason for an alteration of that portion of the Act which refers to political offices is this, that it is quite evident that, in the intention of the Legislature, the Act was meant to apply, upon an equable principle, to all offices and all political officers who stood substantially in the same position. Now, since the Act was passed, the changes have been so numerous that that object is no longer gained. Many offices which then existed now exist no longer, and many which now exist have been brought into existence since the passing of the Act, and consequently do not fall within its provisions; and the main rectification which I propose to attain by the Bill I shall ask leave to bring in is, while we strike out of the Act those offices which no longer exist, and which were placed into it at a former period with reference to the circumstances then existing, that there shall be introduced into the Act other offices which did not then exist, and possibly also in some cases one or two offices which did then exist, but which, on account of some special considerations perhaps not well understood, were not included in the Act, so that the candidates for those offices—the list of possible candidates for them—will undergo some change while the conditions of obtaining pensions will, in the main, remain the same, although in certain points it may be desirable to modify them. Now, this is a subject with regard to which it is the duty of the Executive Government, having, as they have, a knowledge of the administrative departments of the country and their relations, frankly to lay their views before the House at a period when they think the time is suitable for legislation and that an adequate necessity for it has arisen. Therefore, instead of merely asking the House itself to examine the question, I shall propose to place before it the changes which the Government think might reasonably and properly be made. Nor do I think that the House will find that there is any reason to object to the spirit in which those changes have been conceived. But while I hold that the Executive Government ought not to shrink from its ordinary and proper responsibility in submitting its views on

  169
  this matter to the House, I must say, on the other hand, that on this question of all others it would be most repugnant to the intentions and opinions of the Government that anything like pressure or authority should be brought to bear by them for the purpose of inducing the acceptance of those views by the House. Every question in one sense, but especially questions relating to pensions and superannuation, and most of all questions relating to pensions available for those who have served in political offices, ought to be determined by the independent and impartial judgment of the House itself. Therefore, we shall in the first instance invite the scrutiny of the House into our views by laying this Bill—if I am permitted to make the Motion—on the table; in the second place, I shall take care that ample time is afforded for its consideration by the House before the House is called upon to give any sanction to its principle by a second reading. And when the second reading shall have been passed—if the Bill so far meets the approval of the House—we shall be desirous to invite the concurrence of the House in any mode of considering its provisions in detail which, may be suggested or may appear to be generally convenient. I think, Sir, that these remarks are all that are necessary to introduce the Resolution which I am about to move. The Resolution has been drawn up in terms formally and technically correct, and begins with the words "That it is expedient to amend and extend the provisions" of certain Acts; but after what I have said, the House will understand that it is for technical reasons that the word "extend" is con templated, rather than because we in any way intend or endeavour to render eligibility for political pensions more easy of access. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by accordingly moving a Resolution declaring it expedient to amend and extend the provisions of the Acts in question.:
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to amend and extend the provisions of the Acts 57 Geo. 3, c. 65, and 6 Geo. 4, c. 90, enabling Her Majesty to recompense the Services of persons holding, or who have held, certain high and efficient Civil Offices, and of the Act 4 and 5 Will. 4, c. 24, regulating Pensions, Compensations, and Allowances to persons having held Civil Offices in Her Majesty's Service.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  MOTION FOR SUPPLY.
  Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty.
  QUEEN'S SPEECH referred; Motion considered.
  (In the Committee.)
  QUEEN'S SPEECH read.
  Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  RATEABLE PROPERTY (METROPOLIS) BILL.—LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. GOSCHEN, in rising to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for uniformity in the Assessment of Rateable Property in the Metropolis, said, he thought there was no Member of that House who would not approve the general scope and object of the Bill, which provided that where there was a common charge there should be a uniform assessment co-extensive with the area of that charge. Now there were in London a large number of different rates assessed over the whole metropolis, and no one would dispute the advantage of having a uniform assessment over the whole of that area. But there were also other improvements which he hoped would be effected by the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen were doubtless aware that the Union Assessment Committee Act of 1862 applied only to unions, and that the separate parishes in the metropolis, existing side by side with those unions, were not affected by it, and consequently did not enjoy the advantages conferred by that Act, which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers). It was proposed by the present Bill to direct the twenty-two separate metropolitan parishes to establish Union Assessment Committees, so that the first effect of the measure would be to put those parishes on the same footing with the seventeen unions. There was, however, a further object which he hoped would be accomplished by the Bill. At present a number of rates were levied in the metropolis on separate bases. These were the police rate, the poor rate, the county rate, the rate for the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the rate for the new Metropolitan Asylums Board. The Bill proposed to place all these rates on a uniform footing, and, if possible, to establish one basis for local and Imperial

  171
  taxation in the metropolis. In fact, the object was the same as that which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt) aimed at in his Bill as applying to the country at large, though the metropolis was exempted from the operation of that measure. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman did not pass into law in consequence, he believed, of its having been introduced at a late period of the Session; but it was subjected to the scrutiny of a very able Committee, and much improved by the process. That Bill contained another valuable provision with regard to the definition of gross estimated rental. Great confusion arose from the various methods in which the rental was made up by different union assessment committees and by the separate parishes in the metropolis. Not only was there the greatest variety with regard to the deductions allowed, but also with regard to the manner in which they arrived at gross estimated rental. Consequently a great grievance was inflicted upon certain classes of occupiers, such as weekly tenants, for instance. In some unions the gross estimated rental was the aggregate amount of the weekly rents, while others contended that this was contrary to the law, which directed that the fair annual value of the house should be taken. This state of things might, in his opinion, be remedied by introducing a better definition of gross estimated rental in the present Bill, which, he might remark, contained no new principle whatever, but merely sought to carry out the principle of the Union Assessment Committee Act, that, where there was a common charge, common valuation lists must be established on the same basis; and the Valuation of Property Bill of 1867, which through the pressure of business did not pass, was really the foundation of the present measure. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) introduced his Metropolitan Poor Bill of 1867, of which they heard so much in London at present, he stated his views very clearly with regard to the necessity of having a common valuation of property in the metropolis. On the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman remarked—
  "Great stress has been laid on the evils which will result from placing those charges on the Common Fund, owing to there being no system of
  172
  uniform valuation iii the metropolis. I feel that point, and consequently I have endeavoured to meet the difficulty by Clause 62—
  "'The Poor Law Board shall from time to time assess on the several unions and parishes in the metropolis the amounts of their respective contributions to the Common Poor Fund in proportion to the annual rateable value of the property therein comprised, to be determined according to the valuation lists, or, where there are none, 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.'
  "It is quite true that we do not always know on what system a union or parish is assessed for Poor Law purposes; but the assessments for the Metropolitan Board and for the police rate we know are on the best available basis; and the Poor Law Board, in making an assessment, will be able to do as is done in counties. Though the assessments in the various unions of a county may be on different systems, the counties levy a rate on their own assessment, which is made on a uniform system throughout the whole county. So far, therefore, as it can be done, we have endeavoured to meet that objection by a clause in the Bill; but I propose to do more. My hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Hunt) has brought in a Bill to provide a uniform scheme of assessment for the whole country, with the exception of the metropolis. I will wait to see what is done with that Bill; but I have sketched a Bill for the metropolis, which I propose to introduce if my hon. Friend's should receive the sanction of Parliament."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 779.]
  That Bill did not, however, receive the sanction of Parliament, because there was not sufficient time to pass it that Session, but he might say that the House generally accepted the principle that it was necessary to establish uniformity of assessment. The only question which could arise was whether it was expedient to proceed to deal at once with this particular part of the machinery of local taxation—a machinery which in many other parts required to be altered. No doubt the whole system of our local taxation was full of every kind of complexity and difficulty, but still he thought this particular part was one which might be dealt with separately. It was indeed a matter of urgency, and he therefore trusted the House would pass the Bill as quickly as possible if he could show, as he believed he could, that considerable hardship and injustice were at the present moment arising from the want of such provisions as were contained in the Bill which he asked for leave to introduce. With regard to the country generally, the principal, though not the only, rate which extended over the whole county was the county rate. But that was not the case in the metropolis. They had in

  173
  the metropolis a number of different charges. There were the police charges, the Metropolitan Board of Works rate, and the new rate imposed by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. It was probable that additional charges would be put on the metropolis, and he thought the House would be in favour of distributing the burdens imposed on the metropolis over large instead of small areas. The Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was most valuable in this respect. That measure had been very much criticized, but he hoped to take an opportunity before very long of telling the House what had been done under it, of correcting some exaggerated statements which had been made as to the expense incurred, and of satisfying the ratepayers in the metropolis generally that the burdens imposed upon them would not be so great as some of them anticipated. It was obvious that there must be a further progress towards the equalization of the rates, and he scarcely thought the House would consent to the equalization of rates unless some machinery were devised to control the local management of a portion of the general expenditure, by which he did not mean Imperial expenditure, but the more central metropolitan expenditure as compared with the expenditure in separate parishes. The common charges in the metropolis were on the increase. Taken roughly, there was the police rate of about 6d. in the pound, the county rate of 4d. in the pound, the Metropolitan Board of Works rate from 6d. to 7d. in the pound, and the rate for the Common Fund, which is about 5d. in the pound. These items together amounted to about 1s. 10 d.; and if they reached 1s. 11 d. they would represent a sum of £1,500,000. Nearly that sum was now raised over the whole area of the metropolis, but the present system of raising the money was full of anomalies, injustice, and inequalities. These rates were raised according to different principles. The two leading rates were the county rate and the poor rate. Until a week or two ago there had been no revision of the county rate in Middlesex since 1864, and, generally speaking, the rate was not revised more frequently than once in five years. And here he wished to point out that, on the basis of the county rate as settled in 1864, vari-
  174
  ous new charges had been imposed on the unions and separate parishes in the metropolis. The Metropolitan Board of Works levied its rate according to the county rate basis. The police rate, too, was levied on the same basis, and it was another anomaly that it was collected with the poor rate. The new rate for the Common Fund of the metropolis, on the other hand, was levied on the basis of the poor rate; and there being no equality between the two, it resulted that if the county rate were adopted as a basis injustice would be done to a certain number of unions, while other unions would suffer if the poor rate principle were adopted. He would mention one or two instances which showed the utter want of system in regard to these rates. In the first place, it must be remembered that the metropolis was subject to four jurisdictions in reference to the county rate—namely, Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, and the City of London. In these jurisdictions the county rate was made by different bodies and on different principles, though it nevertheless formed the basis of what might be termed the common operations of the metropolis. Take the case of Poplar, for example. There the valuation list for the poor rate was £473,000. The valuation for the county rate was £344,000, and if that valuation was too low, Poplar was not paying its fair share towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If, on the contrary, the valuation for the poor rate was too high, it was charged more than its fair share towards the common relief of distress. The fact was that there were different Boards, levying rates on different principles, and the consequence was that the valuations did not agree. In Middlesex there were eight unions, and the county rate valuation which had been in force until very recently was £2,600,000, while the poor rate valuation was £2,900,000. In the four Surrey Unions the county rate was £889,000, the poor rate valuation £944,000. The revision of the county rate, however, which, had just been made had effected a great difference, because the county rate, instead of being £500,000 below the poor rate, had become higher by £500,000 or more. He thought he had said enough to show that the whole system of rating, so far as valuation was concerned, was

  175
  in a state of great confusion, and for that state of things he saw no remedy except to establish uniformity of assessment among all the unions, and for all the various rates that had to be raised. In establishing that uniformity in a case where so large a number of local authorities existed as were at present to be found in the metropolis there were no doubt considerable difficulties to be encountered, but with the assistance of the House he hoped those difficulties might be overcome. Another grievance under which many unions laboured, independent of their being taxed upon an erroneous basis, was that loans were contracted on the security of the rateable value of the property in separate parishes, and the instalments payable for thirty years to come placed upon a faulty foundation. The instalment did not shift with the rateable value, but was fixed, and the consequence was that loud re-monstrances were made against permitting such a state of things to continue. Most of the deputations which had waited on the Poor Law Board on the subject were from the poorer parishes, where it had been found necessary to screw up the valuation to the highest possible point. In parishes like St. George's, Hanover Square, no temptation to do that existed. The temptation, if any, was, on the contrary, the other way, because the lower the inhabitants were assessed in comparison with their neighbours, the higher would the rate in the pound appear which they would have to pay. A revision of the assessment in the parish of St. George was, he believed, in progress at the present moment. It had been stated in electoral and other returns that the usual difference there between gross estimated rental and rateable value was 10 per cent; but any hon. Member who lived in the parish must, he thought, be aware that the difference between the actual rent paid and the assessment to the relief of the poor was something very unlike 10 per cent. He knew a house in the parish of St. George which was assessed at £600 for the house duty, and not higher than £370 for the county and poor rates. The system of assessment being thus faulty, it would, he felt assured, be admitted that a case for immediate legislation on the subject had been made out. The simpler the organization, and the fewer the novelties introduced with a view to
  176
  provide a remedy, in his opinion, the better. He had been informed that if valuation lists for the entire metropolis were to be made out de novo, five years at least must elapse before they could be completed. So long a delay was, in his opinion, very undesirable. The principle on which he desired to proceed was to secure uniformity of assessment, and that was to be done by two, or he might say by three means. In the first place, he would give all the unions a locus standi among themselves, so that one union might be able to appeal against the valuation of another. That was the principle of the valuation of property which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford in 1867, and it seemed to him to be the proper principle on which to proceed. But, before the unions were brought together as he proposed, assessment committees must be established in those separate parishes in which none now existed, the number of which was twenty-two. One of the advantages of these parishes having regular assessment committees would be that the ratepayers in those parishes would be placed on the same footing as the unions, and would be afforded an opportunity of inspecting the valuation lists, which would be deposited in certain places. That would be quite independent of the general advantage of bringing the unions together. It was, he might add, astonishing to find to what an extent separate parishes had been able to exempt themselves from the operation of the general law. There were a large number of local Acts which stood in the way at every step. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1844 contained a special exemption of parishes with a population of over 20,000 from its operation, unless with the consent of two-thirds of the guardians, and the rights of separate parishes were reserved as regarded the relief of the poor. Those parishes, of course, escaped the operation of the Union Assessment Act, because they were not unions, but they came to a certain extent within the scope of the general law under the Bill of 1867, which empowered the Poor Law Board to amalgamate them together. They still however remained excluded from the operation of the general law so far as the levying their own rates and the making their own assessments were con-

  177
  cerned; but he thought that could be no possible objection to the establishment of union assessment committees in these parishes, such as existed in all the unions. The next thing to be done after the establishment of separate assessment committees was to bring them together for the purpose of uniform assessment. What he should propose, then, in the first place, was to have representatives from the assessment committees, who should be able to meet together to decide on a common basis of action in regard to valuation, subject to the regulations laid down in the Bill. There had been various proposals with reference to an Assessment Board for the metropolis. It had been proposed that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be appointed an Assessment Board; that the Central Sick Asylum Board should be appointed; and that the justices should form the Assessment Board. It appeared to him far better to follow the general line of the Valuation of Property Bill—that each union assessment committee should elect its own representative; and thus to carry out as between unions the principle that had already been carried out as between parishes. In this way they would obtain a Central Assessment Board for the metropolis. He proposed that a scale of deductions should be inserted in the Bill, because he thought that such a scale was necessary if they were to arrive at anything like uniformity of assessment. At present the deductions in some, unions were from 20 to 30 per cent, while in others, without any apparent cause for the difference, they amounted to only 10 per cent. The Government had given considerable attention to the question, whether it was possible to lay down anything like a general system of deductions, and they had arrived at the conclusion that by naming a maximum amount of deductions and giving the unions a discretionary power below that maximum, it was possible to do so in a satisfactory manner. That principle would be acted on in this Bill. As to appeals by one union against the assessment made by another, he thought that if the appeal were to the Central Board it would be necessary to give an appeal from that Board itself, because it would be composed of interested parties. A multiplicity of appeals would lead to complication, and he was of opinion, therefore,
  178
  that it would be more desirable that the Central Board should have a paid assessor, who would act as judge in appeals from one union against another. He hoped that the valuation which would be made under the new system would, be the basis, not only of the poor rate but the taxation levied by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the house tax, and, in fact, of all other taxes. It would be necessary to give the surveyor of the taxes and the Metropolitan Board of Works power to appeal against the assessment made by a union. Each union would make its own assessment, as at present, and would be required to revise its valuations at stated periods; but each union would have power to make an appeal against the total of the assessment of any other union. The power of appeal by one union against another would only be as regarded the totals. He believed that the effect of giving this power of appeal would be to insure great uniformity without a resort to the process of appeal being actually had recourse to in any considerable number of cases. When it was laid down that the surveyor of taxes would have a right to appeal against the valuation of any hereditament, and that the several unions would have the power of appeal to which he had just alluded, each union would be interested in bringing the valuation up to a proper figure. When the Bill was laid upon the table the House would be better able to judge of the machinery by which, it was hoped, uniformity of assessment would be secured. He wished to say one word as to gross estimated rental in connection with weekly tenants. Those tenants represented that in many instances they were suffering a great grievance in consequence of the present want of system. Memorials had been presented on the subject, and it had been suggested that a case should be brought in a Court of Law. Hon. Members might have seen from the report of proceedings in connection with Sir Sydney Waterlow's association for improving the dwellings of the industrial poor, that the way in which an Assessment Board had acted was to look at one block of buildings, the apartments in which were let at various weekly amounts, reckon up all these several sums, multiply the aggregate number of shillings by fifty-two, and say that the sum thus obtained was the gross estimated rental of the

  179
  block. It was stated that, owing to valuations being made in that way, and to the abolition of the compound householders, the rateable value of weekly tenements had been raised by no less than 40 per cent. The difference in respect of value between weekly tenements and yearly ones was so clear that it was, he thought, possible to lay down some definition so as to avoid the hardship to which he alluded. Owing to the arbitrary proceedings of the assessment committees, and the difficulty of appealing, it was not easy for weekly tenants to obtain justice in this respect. He was glad that the increase of taxation in the metropolis was now engaging so much public attention, because this attention would lead to a more rigid supervision of the outlay. With a view to justice and economy in that taxation, he now asked the House to agree to his Motion that leave be given him to bring in a Bill to provide for uniformity in the Assessment of Rateable Property in the Metropolis.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board was correct in stating that it had been his intention, when at the Poor Law Board, to propose a measure having for its object what, of course, was the object of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman now asked leave to introduce. In fact, it must have been the intention of those who placed on the metropolis the charges imposed by the Bill brought in by the late Government, that those charges should be raised on a uniform basis. It was quite clear that the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was a just one, and any question that might arise must be as to the framing of the Bill. He could not give any positive opinion on its details till he saw them in print; but it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to follow the plan of the Bill brought in by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) the year before last. It appeared to him that the great thing at the outset was to obtain suitable bodies to lay down the basis of rating. He would observe that in a Board made up of representatives of the same parish there would not probably be mutual check and supervision to the same extent as there existed in a Union Board made up of representatives from several parishes; but the presence at the Cen-
  180
  tral Board of the representatives of the surveyor of taxes, and other authorities besides the unions, might perhaps afford a security that the valuation in the various unions would be brought up to the proper amount. It was very desirable that there should be uniformity of assessment in the metropolis. The question of metropolitan taxation was a very serious one; and no doubt it would have to engage the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department when next year, as he proposed, he should set about providing a new Government for the metropolis. As in a Bill such as that now proposed everything depended on details, he thought it would be more advisable not to discuss it until after it had been printed and placed in the hands of Members. In its principle it should have his hearty support.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he was of opinion that the inhabitants of the metropolis were greatly indebted to the President of the Poor Law Board for introducing the measure under discussion at this early period of the Session. He was glad to find that there was a prospect that they would now obtain a uniform and equitable assessment. The present system, under which different parishes had different modes of assessment, resulted in great injustice. He thought that a common basis should be formed upon which every tax, whether for local or Imperial purposes, should be levied, and that the system of assessing quotas on the parishes by the unions for poor rates, by the counties for county rates, and on the various districts of the metropolis by the Metropolitan Board of Works for drainage, &c, ought to be abolished, as it involved great inequality of taxation. He considered that the time had arrived when the exemption from taxation enjoyed by certain favoured districts—such, for instance, as the Temple, and the other Inns of Court—should be abolished.
  MR. BRODRICK, on behalf of the large constituency (Mid Surrey) affected by the measure, as within the metropolitan area, which he represented, tendered his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this Bill at the commencement of the Session. The measure was the legitimate corollary of that introduced, but from various circumstances not carried to a successful con-

  181
  clusion, by the late Government. In many of the parishes immediately adjoining those within the metropolis were to be found great numbers of the working hands of the metropolis, and with scarcely an exception no large landed proprietors or householders. The result was that the very serious burdens already borne by those parishes were daily increasing. Nothing could be more anomalous than that while in some of those parishes, especially in the southern districts, the valuation upon which they were assessed for the metropolitan rates amounted to the full value of the rack rental, in the most wealthy metropolitan parishes, such as St. George's, Hanover Square, that valuation did not, in many instances, exceed 50 per cent of the amount of the rack rental; so that even the low rating in this last parish formed no adequate measure of the difference of burden as between, it and less wealthy parishes. Looking to these facts, no doubt could be entertained that sooner or later a uniform system of rating must be adopted. It was just a moot point whether it might not ultimately be desirable to adopt the contributory principle, which had been found to work so admirably at the time of the Lancashire distress. The adoption of such a principle would not in any way prevent a uniform basis for taxation being agreed upon. Should the right hon. Gentleman succeed in carrying the present measure to a successful conclusion, much more good would flow from it than he ventured to anticipate would result from several other measures which had taken a far more prominent position in the Government programme.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he had been unable to ascertain from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman whether it was proposed that a fresh valuation should be made for rating purposes. As such a valuation would be attended with great expense, many parishes might be unwilling to agree to such a proposal. This was a very important question; because he did not see how the various proposals contained in the Bill were to be carried out, unless each parish were accurately valued. At the present time, when a parish was rated by itself, it did not much matter whether the valuation was correct or not, as the worst that could result from an inaccurate valuation was that a ratepayer might have to appeal
  182
  against the rate. When, however, all the parishes came to be rated together it would be highly important that they should be fully valued in order to secure a fair distribution of the burden of the rates. He did not know exactly what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject, but in his opinion the most important question connected with the rating of the metropolis was that of the equalization of the poor rate. They all knew that a most inadequate amount was levied in the rich parishes in comparison with the poor ones; and this difference was much aggravated by the fact that in the poor parishes they paid upon a much higher valuation than they did in the rich ones. The rich parishes created many of the poor, and they were driven out of their bounds into the poorer parishes. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman was not going to content himself with the measure now before the House, but would go a step further, and bring in a Bill for the equalization of these rates.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he hoped that there would be no delay in passing the measure, so that they might consider the more important question which had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke). He did not, however, himself think that the Government would be in a position to deal with that question until the present measure had been in operation for some few years. The first thing to be considered was the actual incidence and pressure of local taxation, which at present no one knew; and it was marvellous that they should so long have gone on increasing these burdens without taking care that they were placed on an equitable basis as between the various parishes. As the representative of three very large parishes in London he thanked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) for bringing in this measure, which he believed would be carried with acclamation from both sides of the House. When the measure passed into law, its operation would doubtless furnish materials for such an argument as that to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) was anxious to give effect, but at present it would be wholly premature to discuss that matter.
  MR. BREWERsaid, he wished to point out, as a matter of fairness to the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square,

  183
  that within the last few months the parish had been entirely re-assessed by an assessor who was independent of the local authorities, and who had been furnished with a copy of Schedule A of the income tax. The argument based upon a state of things formerly existing, was inapplicable and somewhat unjust to that parish in the present day; and although it might be an isolated parish, its contributions to the general fund for the police and Board of Works were raised on the county and not the poor rate. The parish had not had any great anxiety for re-adjustment since the introduction of the Bill of 1867.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that in some parishes it was customary to rate only the buildings, while in others the plant and machinery which the buildings contained were rated as well. Great doubt existed at the present moment as to what was really the law upon the point; but if the principle of rating machinery, &c, were generally adopted, it would have the effect of raising the rating in many cases upwards of 50 per cent. Such an increase, at a time of great commercial depression, could not fail to produce results of a serious character.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that as the representative of a manufacturing district, and with the experience gained by acting as Chairman of the Assessment Committee at Ashton-under-Lyne, he begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) that if he would determine what constituted "annual value" he would settle a point always felt to be one of very great difficulty.
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, that those parishes which could show that they were at present fully assessed, would not be under the obligation of making an entirely fresh valuation. When the valuation lists had been made out by the different parishes and sent in, the totals of those lists would be dealt with by the Central Board. That Board would have nothing to do with the tenement valuation, but simply with the totals; if any parish, however had conducted its operation so as to reduce its valuation below the proper amount, facilities would be afforded for an appeal. A distinction had been very properly drawn between the equalization of rates and the equalization of assessments. He had always been in favour of equalizing, as far as possible the burdens of differ-
  184
  ent parts of the metropolis; and he fully endorsed the spirit of the observations made by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke). But he maintained that it was impossible to move faster towards the equalization of rates than was allowed by the discovery of the machinery requisite to insure that no abuse would arise from giving to local bodies a claim upon funds not locally raised. The movement made in the direction of equalization in the Act carried by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) must not be underrated. It was true that the poor rate was much greater individually than the other rates; but the other rates raised over the whole metropolis amounted to an aggregate of 2s. in the pound, out of an aggregate of 5s. in the pound representing the taxation of the metropolis as a whole; consequently nearly one-half of the metropolitan taxation was borne by the common area of the metropolis. Further progress, carefully made, would doubtless tend in the same direction; and the question of equalization of rates would certainly receive, as it deserved, the consideration of the Government. Regarding St. George's, Hanover Square, to which the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) had referred, the calculations, of course, had been made upon past and not upon prospective rates; but, taking the figures for last year, he found that the poor rate had been raised on an assessment of £905,000, and the county rate, according to the assessment of 1864, was on a sum of £1,076,000; but that assessment had been raisedto£l,250,000, so that the poor rate assessment of the parish was still £350,000 less than what was acknowledged to be its proper amount of county assessment. That was a striking instance of what had been, and what might still be, if these valuations continued to be made by different justices of the peace, in different counties, and at irregular intervals. The different modes of ascertaining the annual value, to which reference had been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), might be dealt with and corrected in the scale of reductions hereafter to be laid down. By the Bill of 1867 those premises which were used partly as dwellings and partly as manufactories, were bound to follow the established uniformity of principle.

  185
  When the Bill was brought in it would be found that its tendency was not to lower or to raise any special classes of property, hut simply to establish uniformity in the principle of assessing all kinds of property.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for uniformity in the Assessment of Rateable Property in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, and Mr. AYRTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 12.]

RATEABLE PROPERTY BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. GOSCHEN, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for a common basis of value for the purposes of Government and local taxation, and to promote uniformity in the assessment of rateable property in England, said, that as this Bill resembled in its general provisions the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), introduced last Session, he would not occupy the House by describing its provisions at the present time. He hoped, however, soon to be able to lay the Bill on the table of the House.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to know if the same principle was to be applied to borrowed capital for the counties as was applied to that for the metropolis? He also wished to ask whether the borrowed capital was to be repaid throughout the term of its repayment by equal annual instalments? At present, it was provided the amount should be re-paid in thirty equal payments; but that was impossible, taking into consideration that the amount of interest differed and diminished every year. He thought there ought to be something in the nature of a sinking fund for the purpose, and that money borrowed for general purposes ought to be made a union, instead of a parish charge.
  MR. PEASEasked, whether it was intended to equalize the rating of all mines, and to bring under assessment metallic as well as coal mines?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the Bill would be limited practically to the uniformity of assessment of rateable property, and would consequently not include the assessment of any new kinds of property. That question was under consideration; but he was unable to say
  186
  whether there would be time to deal with it this Session. As to loans, it appeared to him that any changes made in reference to them ought rather to be made in the laws under which they were contracted, than in the present Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for a common basis of value for the purposes of Government and Local Taxation, and to promote uniformity in the Assessment of Rateable Property in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, and Mr. AYRTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 11.]

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. MAC EVOY, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 60, intituled, "An Act to prevent the Assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom," and of sec. 24 of the Act of 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, said, the House had, on two former occasions, allowed him to introduce a similar Bill, and the subject had been fully discussed and considered by Select Committees of; both Houses of Parliament. The present Leader of the House, and many of his Colleagues had given their most strenuous opposition to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act when it originally passed, and the Leader of the present Opposition was kind enough, on a former occasion, to allow the introduction of the Bill, which he now had the honour to submit to the House for the third time. The present political circumstances of the country justified him in the belief that the Bill would be received in a fair and candid spirit by the House. He did not propose to go into the policy of his proposal then, but only to ask the House to consent to: the introduction of the Bill, and read it a first time, and he would place the second reading on such a day as would give every hon. Member an opportunity of stating his views with regard to it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had correctly stated that the late House permitted the introduction of this Bill; but he could not think that the few words which had fallen from the hon. Member would at all inform the new House of the importance of the measure which he had undertaken to introduce. He could scarcely account for an individual Member of the

  187
  House, unconnected with the Administration, undertaking so grave a constitutional question as was involved in this particular, unless it was that he represented something more than an ordinary constituency, for the House had been officially informed that the measure had received the sanction of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholics in Ireland and England. It was true, as the hon. Member had stated, that a Committee of this House was appointed in the Session of 1867, and went into the matter of this Bill; but he should not now allude particularly to the circumstances connected with the Bill further than to say that the House was kind enough to excuse him from serving, although he was nominated on the Committee, on the grounds that he did not think the Committee was fairly constituted, and also that there was not time to complete the investigation of so grave a matter. The Committee sat up to the end of the Session, and the result of its investigation was that the Report, with the hon. Member for Meath as the Chairman of the Committee, was carried by a majority of 1. In 1868, the House of Lords appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject-matter of the Bill, and he would beg to refer the House to the Report of that Committee and the most important evidence that was taken by it. The result of that Committee was entirely adverse to the hon. Member's proposal. The evidence tendered before the Committee of this House was rather of a remarkable character. Not one witness was examined in support of the existing law—an Act that was passed in 1851 by repeated majorities in this House, and supported by an overwhelming majority of demonstrations in the country. The House of Lords had decided that it would be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the supremacy of the law of this country that the Act declaratory of the Common Law of the country in maintaining the Supremacy of the Crown should be abrogated as proposed by the hon. Member. He was unwilling to detain the House long, but he wished to put one point before them. A most eminent Roman Catholic barrister was examined before the Committee of that House in 1861—namely, Mr. Hope Scott—and, by way of illustrating one portion of this subject, he would read an
  188
  extract from his evidence, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University embodied in his first Report, but which was rejected by a majority of 1. Mr. Hope Scott was asked, with reference to the relative position of the two Churches—the Established Church and the Roman Church—that, if a Bishop was intruded into the see of another Bishop in this country it would be, in the eye of that portion of the Church at all events which was in the country, a schismatical act? His answer was most remarkable—
  "There can be no doubt about it. The fact is, that the Roman Catholic Church would not be justified in placing bishops anywhere in England or in Ireland, if it did not deny the authority, practically speaking, of the Bishops of the Establishment; it is, of course, an issue between the two religions, which it is of no use blinking."
  Then Mr. Hope Scott was further asked—
  "But the Roman Catholic Church assumes that the English episcopate has no existence in England;"
  and the answer was "Most undoubtedly." He (Mr. Newdegate) begged to call the attention of the House to this subject, because it was not merely a matter of religion, but the House would observe from the answer which he had read that it was a question of establishment and authority. It was the authority of the Established Church as charged by the State with the cure of all souls; that was with the function of extending to all the community its services if they would accept them. It was that function which the Roman Catholic Church disputed, and asserted its rights against the present position of the Established Church. A proposal was before the country to disestablish the Protestant Church in Ireland. Mr. Hope Scott had declared the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to establishment by claiming authority, not over persons of its own communion only, but over all baptized Christians; and that this should be sanctioned by law, and sanctioned by the repeal of the statute which forbade the exercise of that authority and jurisdiction. Therefore, the position was this, that when a proposal was before the country, and would soon be before the House, for the disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland, an hon. Member of the House introduced a Bill which would virtually sanction the establishment of the Roman

  189
  Catholic Church throughout the United Kingdom. He did not wish longer to detain the House, but he would refer the new Members to two sources of information—the evidence and Report of a Committee of this House, presented in 1867, and the evidence and Report before the House of Lords presented last year.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had stated very accurately what had taken place in 1867 and 1868, in reference to the proposal now made to repeal what was called the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. There was only one thing he (Mr. Walpole) would wish to add to the statement, and that was, in consequence of the observation which fell from his hon. Friend, that no evidence was taken against the repeal of the Bill by the Committee of the House of Commons, for some reasons unintelligible to his hon. Friend, and for some reasons which his hon. Friend thought ought to have operated on the minds of the Committee in a different way. And, now, what he wished to remind his hon. Friend of was, that what the Committee considered to be the case, as presented to them, was simply this:—A case of grievance was attempted to be made out, but the whole question of practical grievance was entirely refuted, and it then simply appeared to the Committee that it was not necessary to go into evidence. When the matter came on for discussion, these matters might be more fully noticed. He agreed that this Bill, having been already twice introduced into the House of Commons, it would not perhaps be courteous to the hon. Member, or altogether respectful to the House, to oppose the present Motion; but he must be permitted to observe that the measure, having been carried after the fullest discussion, proposed, as it had been, not by a Conservative, but by a Liberal Government; and having met the general consent and approbation of the people, the hon. Gentleman must expect that those who had seen no cause to change their opinions would continue to give their most strenuous opposition to the alteration of what they regarded as a most important part of the legislation of this country. He had no objection to the introduction of the Bill, but he hoped that due Notice would be given of the time fixed for its second reading.
  Bill to repeal the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter sixty, intituled, "An Act to prevent the Assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of Places in the United Kingdom," and Section Twenty-four of the Act of the tenth George the Fourth, chapter seven, ordered to he brought in by Mr. MACEVOY, Mr. WILLIAM GREGORY, Sir ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT, and Mr. CORBALLY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 13.]

DUMFRIESSHIRE ELECTION.

  MOTION FOE A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS, in moving that a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed "to consider whether Sir Sydney Hedley Waterlow is disqualified from sitting and voting as a Member of this House under the Statute 22 Geo. 3, c. 45, arid to report their opinion thereon," said it would be remembered that at the last General Election, after a strong contest, Sir Sydney Waterlow had been declared duly elected for Dumfriesshire; but in conformity with the Act of last year, a petition had been presented against that return; and among the allegations of that petition was one that the hon. Member was disqualified and ineligible to be elected a Member of the House in consequence of being interested in a Government contract. After the petition was presented, and before the time came for it to be tried, it was withdrawn, under the sanction of judicial authority, and without the least imputation on any of the parties. The result of the withdrawal had been to place the hon. Member in a position in which no hon. Gentleman ought to remain. Ordinarily, if a petition was presented against a return and afterwards withdrawn, all the allegations which went to vacate the seat fell to the ground, and the Member petitioned against, the petition having been withdrawn, stood in precisely the same situation as every other Member for the purpose of discharging his duty. But in this instance, although the petition had been withdrawn, the allegation as to disqualification remained, and the difficulty was how that question should be determined. It would have been determined if the petition had been proceeded with. It could now also be determined but in a way which he thought no hon. Member should be bound to have recourse to—namely, by his sitting and voting with the certain prospect—for the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire had

  191
  received notice to that effect—of being sued for the penalty of £500, for everyday he sat and voted, which a Court of Law might inflict upon him. That was the position in which the hon. Member would be placed if the proposal he was about to make referring the question whether he was disqualified from sitting to a Select Committee were not adopted. At present the hon. Member might hold his seat without taking his place in the House, a course of which no one would approve, or he could accept Office under the Crown—the Chiltern Hundreds—and vacate his seat, a course of which the hon. Member's constituents disapproved, for they had elected him and he enjoyed their confidence; or he might take his seat in the House, running the risk of the serious consequences which might result from his so doing. He saw no reason why the hon. Member should be expected to take any of these courses, and he therefore proposed the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the case. He made this Motion at the earnest request of the hon. Member himself, who desired to act in accordance with the decision of the House.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "To consider whether Sir Sydney Hedley Waterlow is disqualified from sitting and voting as a Member of this House under the statute 22 Geo. 3, o. 45, and to Report their opinion thereon."—(Mr. Thomas Chambers.)
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEthought that Sir Sydney Waterlow should adopt the second alternative mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and vacate his seat, because that portion of the electors of Dumfriesshire who were opposed to the worthy Alderman were determined, whatever might be the decision of a Committee of that House, to proceed for the full penalties if Sir Sydney Waterlow should take his seat in the House. This case did not run on all fours with that of Baron Rothschild in 1855, when contractor for a Government loan, and therefore there was no use in appointing a Select Committee, the hon. Member having admitted that he held the contract for stationery at the time of the election, though he had since resigned it.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it might be well to consider what better position the
  192
  hon. Member would be in after a reference to a Select Committee and a Report thereupon. Without presuming to venture a positive opinion, it occurred to him that the hon. Member would be exactly in the same position after the Committee had reported as he was before, inasmuch as that decision could not be pleaded as an answer to an action for penalties in a Court of Law. It would simply be a preliminary inquiry which might bring that House into conflict with a Court of Law. He would therefore advise him to accept the Chiltern Hundreds.
  MR. WALPOLEobserved, that the question was an important one for the House to consider. He thought it would be very unadvisable to take any step which might possibly bring the House into conflict with the Courts of Law. He understood his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) to say that the law was clear, but that the facts were of such a nature that Sir Sydney Waterlow ought not to be brought within the provisions of the statute. Now, if his hon. and learned Friend could so lay the facts before the House as clearly to show that Sir Sydney Waterlow's seat could not be questioned in point of law, there might then possibly be some reason for the appointment of a Committee. There were the cases of Daniel Whittle Harvey and another which had been referred to Committees; but those cases differed from the present. There the Members had taken their seats; whereas the hon Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had never taken his seat at all. That seemed to him to put the question on a different footing, and he did not see what advantage would be gained by referring the matter to a Committee, while it might possibly bring a difficulty upon the House which it should be their wish to avoid. It might be very unpleasant for the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire to accept the Chiltern Hundreds; but that would certainly be the most desirable course, as it would prevent any collision with the Courts of Law.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had forgot the most important precedent which existed on this matter—he meant the precedent of the case of Baron Lionel Rothschild in 1855. If he (the Lord Advocate) were not much mistaken, all the objections which the right hon. Gen-

  193
  tleman had urged to the course now proposed would have been equally applicable to that case. There had been the previous case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, which was referred to a Committee, and the Committee found that Mr. Harvey was disqualified. But if the Committee had come to a contrary decision, and Mr. Harvey had, in consequence, taken his seat, the same risk, as was now suggested, of conflict with the Courts of Law would have risen. The case of Baron Rothschild no doubt raised the question whether a contractor for a loan was within the statute; but the right hon. Gentleman would not forget that the Motion that was made in the House was one for the issue of a new Writ, bcause it was so plain and palpable on the face of the contract that he was disqualified, that it was no use for the House to make any further inquiry. But the right hon. Gentleman himself was the Member who resisted that proposal, and proposed that there should be substituted for it:—
  "That the Contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty's Government, on the 20th day of April last, for a loan of £16,000,000 for the Public Service be referred to a Select Committee, and that they be directed to report their opinion whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild has vacated his Scat by his entering into the said Contract."—[3 Hansard, exxxix. 169.]
  That Amendment was adopted after a long debate, and the result was that the Committee found that he had not vacated his seat by entering into the contract. That was exactly the position in which the present case stood, with this exception, that Baron Rothschild at that time was under another disability from taking his seat in that House. But here the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Sir Sydney Waterlow) said he was elected for that county, and why should he be asked to accept the Chiltern Hundreds if, in point of fact, he had been well elected? If he had not been well elected the sooner he was made aware of that fact the better. He (the Lord Advocate) conceived it to be somewhat unconstitutional on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) to suggest that a certain number of the electors of Dumfriesshire were prepared to set the decision of that House at nought if it should be unfavourable to their views. If it were competent to other persons to take the
  194
  case into a Court of Law, the House, of course, could take no cognizance of that. The question was whether in a matter which concerned the privileges of this House it was not right to do as had been done before—namely, make a full inquiry and take the opinion of the House upon the subject. What might happen after that opinion was given was another matter; but he could not help thinking it very improbable that the question would be tried in a Court of Law if it appeared to the Committee that the hon. Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was not within the statute. Apart from the particular question which had arisen here, the whole machinery of these statutes would be much better for revision. It was a barbarous state of the law under which a doubtful question of this kind could not be resolved without the risk of enormous penalties for every day the Member took his seat. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would throw no impediment in the way of the appointment of the Committee.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) had no wish to enforce the penalties, but thought it only just to Sir Sydney Waterlow that he should have timely notice that certain persons were prepared to proceed against him under the statute of George III. The opinion of a Committee of this House would not in any way prevent these persons from adopting such a course, and his hon. Friend had merely expressed his belief that such a course would be adopted. It was for the House to decide whether it was desirable that a conflict should arise between a Court of Law and a Committee of the House.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the question really seemed to be one of privilege. Two Members of that House appeared to have communicated with another Member something that they intended to do.
  SIR JOHN HAYwished to explain. He had not communicated, nor had any one else, to his knowledge, communicated to the worthy Alderman anything he intended to do. All that had been communicated was what public rumour said would be done.
  MR. KINNAIRDregarded the explanation as a distinction without a difference. An hon. Member had been informed within the precincts of the House that in the event of his sitting and voting-certain penalties would be attempted to

  195
  be exacted. That was a matter of privilege, and the only way for the House to protect the Member was to appoint a Committee. There need be no apprehension of a collision with the law; for, if an impartial Committee decided that the Member was properly seated, it was not likely that a Court of Law would be inclined to dispute the decision.
  MR. CARNEGIEreminded the House that it was competent for the hon. Baronet or for any other person to appear before the Court of Session and to object to the withdrawal of the petition against Sir Sydney Waterloo's return. If they had wished to raise the question that was the constitutional mode of doing so. The course now taken seemed to be less for the vindication of the privileges of the House than for the purpose of simple annoyance.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would vote for the Motion if it were pressed, but he hoped the result of the discussion would be that steps would be taken in the direction pointed out by the learned Lord (the Lord Advocate). Very serious injustice was done by the operation of the Act of George III. There were many Members of that House indirectly interested in Government contracts, but who did not come under the operation of the Act, while a member of a private firm, having undertaken a contract from which he had sought to free himself, was placed in the very disagreeable situation of being threatened with proceedings for the enforcement of penalties if he sat or voted in the House. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley), who sat upon the Opposition side of the House, was in a position somewhat similar to that of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Sir Sydney Waterlow) in regard to a small contract, and his case was now before the Judges, and it appeared that the Act of George III. had the effect of excluding from the House many gentlemen who would be very desirable Members. That Act was passed when a vast amount of jobbery had been perpetrated in connection with Members of that House, and when many Members represented rotten boroughs, and only came into Parliament for the purpose of making merchandize of the seats which they had purchased. In such a state of things, it was much to the credit of the Parliament of that day that it passed an Act imposing such stringent penalties upon
  196
  Members who held contracts under the Government. They had now, however, Members representing large constituencies; those constituencies kept their eyes upon their representatives; public opinion was brought to bear upon Members; and there was no longer any necessity for any such guarantee as that provided by the Act now under discussion. He hoped, whatever might be the result of the Motion before the House, the effect of the discussion would be the repeal of this section of the Act of George III.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that two questions seemed to be under discussion, one being what the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Sir Sydney Waterlow) ought to do, and the other what the House ought to do. Now, the only question with which they were really concerned was the latter. It had been brought to the knowledge of the House that one of its seats was said to be vacant, and he did not see how the point could be ascertained except by the appointment of the proposed Committee. If the Committee reported that the hon. Member was interested in a contract and that his case came within the statute, the House would no doubt determine that the seat was void and that there must be another election. If not, it would then be for the hon. Member to determine whether he would abide by the Report of the Committee and run the risk of penalties in a Court of Law. He saw no reason for objecting to the appointment of the Committee. In the event of the penalties being sought for under such circumstances, there might, indeed, as had been said, be some danger of a collision between the House and the Courts of Law, but there was no escape from that position, and it would be, as he said, for the hon. Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) to take the course that seemed to him most advisable, as soon as the deliberations of the Committee were over.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to consider whether Sir Sydney Hedley Waterlow is disqualified from sitting and voting as a Member of this House under the Statute 22 Geo. 3, c. 45, and to Report their opinion thereon."—(Mr. Thomas Chambers.)
  And, on Feb. 24, Committee nominated as follows:—The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. BRAND, Mr. HEADLAM, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. HENLEY, and Mr. PEMBERTON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum:—Counsel ordered.

  SALE OF LIQUORS.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable Owners and Occupiers of Property in certain districts to prevent the common sale of Intoxicating Liquors within such districts.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir WILFRID LAWSON, Mr. BAZLEY, and Mr. DALWAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 10.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.