Sitting of 12 May 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On County Financial Arrangements, Lord Edward Cavendish and Mr. Dent added.
Report—House of Commons (Arrangements). [No. 265.]
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 11] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Promissory Oaths * (113).
Second Reading—Stockbrokers (Ireland) [104]; Military at Elections (Ireland) [95], debate adjourned; Customs and Income Tax * [108]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000). *
Committee—County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) (re-comm.) [94].
Report—County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) (re-comm.) [94].

COLONIAL BISHOPS.—QUESTION.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to Parliamentary Paper No. 575, of Session 1867, Whether that Paper correctly describes the Bishopric of Columbia as endowed with property derived from a benefaction of Miss Burden Coutts; whether it is not the fact that the Bishoprics of Adelaide and Capetown have been endowed in like manner by the same donor; and, if so, whether the Return might not with propriety be amended so as to describe the three foundations with the same correctness and precision?
MR. ADDERLEYreplied that the Paper in question was compiled, as all other such Papers were, from Returns furnished by the Governors of the different Colonies. The Governor of British Columbia gave more details than were contained in the Returns from Adelaide and Capetown. In these two Returns no statement of Miss Coutts's endowment of £17,500 for each place had been made. The Colonial Office had, however, obtained information on the point from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and an amended Return would be laid on the table.

IRELAND—THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY.—QUESTION.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he will lay upon the Table of the House the draft of the Charter Her Majesty's Government propose to grant to the Roman Catholic University of Ireland?
THE EARL OF MAYO: A correspondence has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the two prelates appointed at the meeting of the Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy held in Dublin to communicate with the Government on the part of the Archbishops and Bishops. That correspondence is now nearly complete and it will be my duty, I hope in a few days, to lay it on the table of the House. No steps will be taken as regards a Charter for the Catholic University till the House is in possession of the correspondence.

THE RITUAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Second Report of the Ritual Commission, which was laid upon the Table of this House on the 30th April, by command of Her Majesty, has not yet been distributed among Members, and how soon it will be in their hands?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied that he was informed by the Secretary of the Commission that the reason of the delay was, that, attached to the Report, there was a largo blue book of about 300 pages. He believed, however, that it would be delivered to Members to-morrow.

ARMY—FORTIFICATIONS—DOCKYARDS AND NAVAL ARSENALS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will place upon the Table of the House a Statement of the several Contracts entered into and still unfinished for work connected with or for the purposes of the proposed Fortifications for the defence of the Dockyards and Naval Arsenals, & c., of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, showing the date of each Contract; the nature of the work to be executed or material to be provided; the total amount to be paid; the extent of work executed or

113
of material already provided; the amount already paid on account of each existing Contract; and the date fixed in each Contract for its completion?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the best way to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman is by reminding him and the House that originally the total Estimate for these works amounted in round numbers to £7,500,000. Of that amount up to the end of March last year rather more than £4,500,000 had been expended. I have no accurate statement of the exact amount expended up to the present time, but I would say that it is upwards of £5,000,000. I believe the hon. Gentleman himself will be able to calculate, he himself being, I apprehend, connected with one of the contracting firms, the amount which will be expended under contract. He is probably aware that of the whole sum of £7,500,000, all will be expended under contract with two exceptions—one, the amount paid for purchase of land; the other, about £500,000, which had to be expended, partly because of the difficulty in obtaining a supply of labour, and partly from the fact of the failure of one of the contractors. If the hon. Gentleman is desirous of receiving information on all those details, he should move for an unopposed Return, the Government would then give ns many particulars as could properly be furnished.
MR. O'BEIRNEbegged to say that he was not in any way connected with any of the contracting firms. He would move for the Return as suggested by the right hon. Baronet.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND).

  HER MAJESTY'S REPLY TO THE ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT ROYSTON (CONTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD), brought up the following gracious Answer to the Address of the House to Her Majesty on the subject of the Irish Church:—
  I have received your Address, praying that, with a view to preventing, by legislation during the present Session, the creation of new personal interests through the exercise of any public patronage, I would place at the disposal of Parliament My interest in the Temporalities of the Archbishoprics Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices in Ireland, and in the custody thereof.
  Relying on the wisdom of My Parliament, I desire that My interest in the Temporalities of the United Church of England and Ireland, in Ireland, may not stand in the way of the consideration, by Parliament, of any measure relating thereto, that may be introduced hi the present Session.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Having heard the gracious Answer to the Address of this House, I wish to give notice that tomorrow I will move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent for a limited time any new appointments to the Church in Ireland, and to restrain for the same period, in certain respects, the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I suppose it will be the wish of the House to have the Bill in print as soon as possible, and I will make a Motion to that effect at any period of the Sitting to-morrow when I may be at liberty to do so.

INDIA—ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any progress has been made in appointing of ancient monuments in India, and whether he is now able to lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the Table of the House?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that the Governor General in Council had adopted a system, not only for the preservation of these monuments, but also for taking casts and photographs and forwarding them to this country. During the present year four parties had been sent out under the direction of officers of the Public Works Department who would select the monuments to be copied.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—BASUTO- LAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table Despatches from the Governors of the Cape or of Natal with respect to the affairs of Basuto-land?
  MR. ADDERLEY: I have, Sir, already stated to the House that the intention of Her Majesty's Government was not to assume the Protectorate of Basuto-land, but to enable the Natal Government at the re-

  115
  quest of the people to annex them, the Free State being a party to the transaction by agreeing to the boundary, and the Basutos agreeing to such taxation as should make their annexation entail no additional charge on the Government of Natal. As to what events have precipitated measures, we have not yet received any explanation. The reports from the spot which have reached the newspapers are certainly highly coloured and distorted, but the Boers' invasion and devastation of Basuto-land have probably been the cause of hastening and necessitating measures of precaution. Sir Philip Wodehouse has moved up to the spot with the Cape Mounted Police, and with no other force, but he has delayed forwarding his communications. We hear, however, that he has been well received, even in Dutch quarters. As soon as despatches are received from him the whole Correspondence shall be laid upon the table of the House.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the exemption contemplated in favour of Spanish or Portuguese Cattle landed at Liverpool or Southampton will extend to their admission into the Islington Market subsequently to the separation of the Markets by the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied that the markets had not yet been separated by the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill, as the Bill had not become an Act. When the occasion arose, he had no doubt it would be considered by the Privy Council. In the meanwhile, he must decline to answer a hypothetical Question.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON RAILWAYS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, If the Report of the Royal Commission on Railways has received the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and whether they are prepared to introduce legislative measures founded thereon?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, in reply, that the Board of Trade had given most serious and careful attention to the Report
  116
  of the Commissioners, and a large portion of the Government Bill brought in by the President, which was in an advanced stage elsewhere, and would be shortly laid before that House, was based on recommendations contained in that Report. There were, however, several suggestions not included in the Bill of this Session. Some very important ones with reference to Private Bill legislation seemed to be rather within the province of the Standing Orders Committee; others to be matter of arrangement for railway companies themselves; while others, such as the recommendation of prosecutions by the Board of Trade, the Government could not adopt without further information and consideration.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice. The subject was one of great importance, and well deserved the attention of the House. Unless there were some means of controlling the public expenditure, it would be very easy for the Government to ask a larger sum for a popular purpose than was required, and to apply the surplus to a less popular branch of the service. Accordingly, at the end of each Session the Appropriation Act was passed, and an examination of the accounts was, of course, necessary to see that the requirements of the House had been complied with. Up to a recent period the audit had been conducted by and on behalf of the Treasury; but in 1856 the Committee of Public Moneys was appointed, and various irregularities were brought to light, which induced the Committee to recommend that the system of audit should be altered, and that it should be transferred from the control of the Treasury to that of the House. In 1866 an Act of Parliament was passed altering the system, and expressly laying down the principle that the audit of public accounts should be made on behalf of the House of Commons. It was perfectly clear that the relative positions of the Audit Department and of the Treasury were thereby altered. The Treasury now stood in the same relation to the House of Commons as the Accounting Department before did to the Treasury, and the Audit Department now stood in the same relation to the House of Commons as it formerly did to the Treasury. The House of Commons found the money, and

117
the Executive Government spent it; but the House of Commons nevertheless allowed the control of the Department which audited the public accounts to remain in the hands of the Treasury. They all knew that a man could not serve two masters; and in case of a collision taking place between the Executive and the Legislature—which he sincerely hoped would never happen—it was natural that the Auditors, who were controlled by the Treasury, would avoid displeasing those to whom alone they could look for promotion. It was stated that there was very little control exercised over the Audit Office by the Treasury, and he admitted and believed that to be true; for he wished to state here, once for all, that he had no imputation to make against the Treasury, either of the present Administration or the past. He was dealing with principles and not with persona. He would shortly show what the control exercised was. First, he must say that the very abolition of the Audit Board, and the substitution for it of one individual, was, he thought, a mistake, as one man was not so well calculated to withstand the pressure of the Treasury or to give the requisite time for the performance of the duties of audit as a Board was. By the Act regulating the new Audit Department, it consisted of an Auditor General and an Assistant Auditor, both of whom held patent offices, and it might be supposed, therefore, at first sight, that their position was really as independent as that of a Judge. After them came an army of inspectors, clerks,' and so forth, who were required to carry on the work of the Office, With regard to the Auditor General, the Act provided that he should have a salary of £2,000 a year paid from the Consolidated Fund; but there was a curious proviso at the end of the clause to the effect that, if he desired it, he might come upon the Superannuation Act, by which the Government would have the power of rewarding him according to their sense of his merits, as well as of enabling him to retire from the service upon an allowance before his full time was expired. The Assistant Auditor might do the same thing, but he had officially very little power; because, unwisely as he thought the House had struck out a proviso by which the Assistant Auditor would have been enabled, in case of a difference of opinion arising between himself and the Auditor General, to report separately to the House. If they had allowed that arrangement to stand they would have had two concurrent
118
officers instead of one; and, in the case of a difference of opinion between them, it was important that the House should be informed of it. As it was, however, the Assistant Auditor was little better than a head clerk. From these considerations he thought the Treasury had great power over the heads of the Department; but in the lower offices they had still more, for they not only had the power of appointment, but of reward and advancement, so that unless they rendered themselves acceptable to the Treasury, the inspectors, clerks, and other subordinate officers had no hope of advancement in the Civil Service. They had also power to regulate the duties of the clerks; and they had exercised that power in a way which he thought was detrimental to the public interests, for they had reduced the number of classes from four to three, by which the chances of rising in the service were to a corresponding extent diminished. He thought, therefore, he had made out the terms of his Resolution, that the control and audit of the public Revenue ought to be independent of the Treasury, and directly responsible to that House. He thought he had also made it clear that that independence and direct responsibility did not exist at present; and, therefore, that the system called for a thorough revision. But, by a revision, he had no desire in any way to restrict or impede the operations of the Treasury, They were an Executive Department of the State, and they often had to perform their duties in haste and under much pressure; and he had no doubt that they almost always acted in good faith. If occasionally they were wrong it probably was not from bad intention; but, whether from bad intention or not, that House ought to be the judge. He would not have the Audit Department interfering with the Treasury. It was not an Executive or interfering Department, but merely one intrusted with the examination of accounts, and the duty of reporting to the House in respect of them. It might be said that the Audit Office was under the control of that House, as it was in direct communication with the Committee on Public Accounts; but he could not think that that control was very efficient. The Committee was, no doubt, composed of very able men, but they had not the means of checking the accounts. The two Members who understood the subject best were the only two Members who were not likely to throw light upon them—he meant the Secretary to the

119
Treasury and the ex-Secretary—and they represented the men who were to be put on their trial. There were also independent Members on the Committee, like the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey); but these Gentlemen could not be expected to devote their whole time to the examination of the public accounts. What he wished to suggest instead of the present system was the appointment of a Standing Committee of the House, who should have the Audit Department under their direct control. The Auditor General would be their officer, and would be in direct communication with them; and they would then have some hope of knowing where deviations from the Appropriation Act bad occurred in the administration of the finances of the country. It had been said that this was a moribund Parliament, and that it represented an expiring Constitution. For his part he did not look with any apprehension to the result of the Bill of last Session—although they should look forward to great changes. But it was desirable, he thought, to point out to the new Parliament—who would be new to the work—that, in the opinion of the present House, the present machinery of the Audit Department was defective in the respects pointed out by his Resolution. He hoped to have the support of the Government for the views which he now advocated, and which were, indeed, admirably summarized in a speech made by the present Prime Minister, in April 1856, in which the right hon. Gentleman said—
"An audit administration should be complete and independent. The whole accounts of the country should be placed under its control, and it ought to be responsible directly to that House."—[3 Hansard, cxli. 700.]
SIR GEORGE BOWYER, in seconding the Motion, said, he had always been of opinion that the Act of 1866 was a mistake, and had been founded on wrong principles. One great objection to it was that it united together two functions that ought never to have been combined—namely, the office of Controller General of the Exchequer with that of Auditor General. The Controller General was the chief accountant of the Crown—all the public monies stood in his name; but no accountant ought to be an auditor. Take the case of any public company or great commercial establishment. What would be thought if the person to audit the accounts was the cashier of the company? Would a gentleman allow his accounts to be audited by the steward who received his
120
rents; or a shopkeeper employ to audit his accounts the man who had the control of the till? It was absurd, then, that the accountant of the Crown should be also the chief and, indeed, the only auditor of public accounts. That was a fundamentally vicious system. It appeared also to him that the Audit Department, to be efficient, should be a great and powerful Department—directly responsible to the House, and having complete control over the business it had to do, and not a subordinate Department. The Court or Chamber of Accounts at Paris was not a subordinate Department of the State; it was what was called a Sovereign Court. Besides its mere accounting power it had a judicial power over accountants, might order them to bring in their accounts at particular times, prescribe by what vouchers and other documents those accounts should be supported, and so forth. This seemed to him to be a model accounting system. It had been laid down on high authority that every Department should have a complete control over its own business; but the Board of Audit formerly, and the Accountant General now, had no such power. Accounts were sent in, and, if anything was wrong, it was queried and sent back; but there was no power of compelling the Auditor to answer queries; and, in case of default, there must be a reference to the Treasury, who would instruct the Attorney General to proceed against the accountant. There was another defect. Sometimes the Board of Audit were very much encumbered with business; at other times it had scarcely anything to do. The reason was because the Board of Audit had no power to regulate its own business, to prescribe the times at which the accountants should bring in their accounts, or to compel them, unless by a roundabout process, to produce documents or vouchers, or to answer questions. They might make an order on the accountants; but, if the accountants did not obey, there was no remedy. They might call the spirits; but, if the spirits did not come, they could do nothing. Therefore the Audit Department was practically impotent to perform its duties, as it was in the hands of the accountants and of the Treasury. Now, the Audit Board ought to have the power—if necessary, by taking him into custody—to compel an accountant to appear before them. They ought to have a power similar to that of the Courts of Law of committing for contempt. He was convinced

121
that, until the Board received independent powers over accountants, the audit of the public accounts would always be a matter of mere form. When he was a Member of the Public Moneys Committee, he remembered that the Audit Board was examined as to their functions, and it appeared that they were very much afraid of the Treasury—that they would not presume to ask any questions of that Department, or meddle with it in any way whatever. Now, the Audit Board ought to be supreme, so far as the functions of audit, went, over all the Departments of the State; it ought to be able to call them to account and exercise authority over them. Of course, it was much easier to bully an individual than a body of men. Not that he meant that the present or the late Government would do such a thing; but Parliament made laws to restrain, not good men, but bad; and times might come when the Treasury or the Government might choose to put a pressure on the Auditor General, which he, as an individual, might not have the power to resist, or who might be willing to give way; and, if he were willing to become subservient to the Government, he would do so without fear of detection. The Audit Board was little better than a Department of the Treasury. When the Bill on the subject was under discussion, he suggested that the Auditor General ought to have the appointment of his own officers, so that he might have people around him on whom he could rely; but, at present, all his officers were appointed by the Treasury, and might, therefore, have interests adverse to him. In fact, the clerks might, in some instances, be spies upon him—they might take the part of the Treasury against their superior, and be made use of by that Department to hoodwink or deceive. They all knew what "cooking accounts" meant; and the Auditor General might find it extremely difficult to prevent that curious art from being exercised in his Office. In the Public Moneys Committee, the late Mr. Wilson, then Secretary to the Treasury, took a very active part in the proceedings, and his view was, that there should be little or no control over the Treasury; that all monies should be paid into that Department; and that it should do exactly what it liked. But that was not the view of the majority of the Committee. Now, the Treasury was an encroaching Department; it had the greatest power of any Department in
122
the State, because it bore the purse, and therefore it should be looked upon with a certain amount of jealousy, and kept under control. But the whole tendency of their legislation of We years had been to make the Treasury more and more independent—in short, to constitute it the master of all other Departments in the State. That he thought very objectionable policy; and, if there was one Department over which the Treasury should not be allowed to have control, that Department was the Board of Audit.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That those who conduct the audit of Public Accounts on behalf of the House of Commons ought to be independent of the Executive Government and directly responsible to this House; and that, inasmuch as the appointment, salaries, and pensions of the officers entrusted with the conduct of such audit are more or less under the control of the Treasury, the present system is one which imperatively calls for revision."—(Mr. Dilwyn.)
MR. THOMSON HANKEY, while admitting that the Audit Department was open to improvement, contended that it was far superior to the arrangements which existed prior to 1856. Any one taking the trouble to examine the accounts presented by that Department could inform himself extremely well of the mode in which the public money voted by the House had been expended. His hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) had urged that the audit should not rest with any Department which was concerned in the expenditure, and the case of a steward appointing his own auditor had been mentioned. This, however, was not the principle on which the Audit Board was established. The Treasury was responsible to the country, and should alone possess the power of controlling the expenditure of the public money. To take away the power of controlling the expenditure from the Treasury, and place it in the Audit Department, would be to uproot every principle which obtained in this country with regard to the expenditure of public money. The Treasury was necessarily the spending Department, and all that Parliament could do was to ascertain that the money voted had been expended in the manner directed by the Appropriation Act. His hon. Friend had argued that the Auditor General ought to be independent; but this was already the case; for, though appointed by the Government of the day, he became, when once appointed, independent both of the Government and of Parliament, As to

123
the proposal that he should nominate his own clerks, it must be remembered that he had no communication with the House. He would necessarily, therefore, have to apply to some Department for their salaries, and to what Department could he apply but to the Treasury? Under the present system the clerks were appointed by the Government, who were responsible to Parliament, and their salaries were voted by the House. Thus Parliament had really more control over these officers than if they were appointed by the Auditor General, independent of Parliament. Several years used formerly to elapse before the application of the sums voted by Parliament could be entirely tested; but he believed that during one Session the expenditure of the previous Session was now thoroughly audited and laid before the House. He believed this point had been nearly reached, and it ought, at all events, to be aimed at. With regard to the Controller of the Exchequer, Controllers had very different functions in different Departments, and that officer had nothing to do with the expenditure. All he had to do was to satisfy himself, before the Treasury could draw 1s. of the annual supply from the Bank of England, that it had been authorized by Act of Parliament. He admitted that the accounts might be simplified and rendered more intelligible; but there was no ground for regarding the present arrangement as a retrograde one, or for supposing that the system proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) would be an improvement.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, that, having read with some attention the evidence taken before the Public Moneys Committee, he felt inclined to concur in the views of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) rather than those of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey). Mr. Romilly, in his evidence before that Committee, said—
"If a subordinate officer were placed at the Treasury for the purpose of audit, it would be a system that could hardly command confidence, and certainly would not be entitled to it. There is a very great difficulty in a Board checking the great public Departments. … In the case of the army and navy accounts there is an appeal to the superior authority of the Treasury, and the Treasury themselves have the power of deciding on disputed points. The check is one over which the Treasury have full control. … The check would be very different if it were to be exercised not by, or on behalf of, the Treasury, but over them. There is always a risk in
124
cheeking the accounts of any Department by officers placed in that Department, that these officers become part and parcel of that Department."
Mr. Romilly's opinions on this subject were entitled to great consideration. Alterations had since been made, and the Audit Board now exercised an important function in seeing that all expenditure was in conformity with Acts of Parliament. It might be said that this was a mere matter of form. Lord Monteagle's experience certainly was to the contrary; for in his time there were several differences with the Treasury. And if control and supervision were necessary in the days when the Controller General and the Audit Board were separate, it was much more necessary now that these two Departments were united. Every Opposition found fault with the Ministerial Estimates; but when they in turn succeeded to power, the tendency was always to increase, and not to diminish. The people of this country wanted to know the reason why expenditure, which was always represented in the first instance as merely temporary, was suffered to become permanent, and they called, and would call more strongly hereafter, for an account distinctly stated. The necessity for some impartial and external audit was evident. This might be thought a small matter; but the real fact was that all attempts at improvement had been but gradual and tentative since in 1780 the great jobbery of that day first attracted the attention of Burke. There was still room for more improvement, It was very easy to those versed in figures to make an account appear perfectly fair, while all the time it covered very gross extravagances. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had rendered good service in calling attention to the matter, and he should certainly support him if he went to a division.
MR. WHITEsaid, he was much surprised that the language of the hon Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) varied so widely from what it was a little time ago, on this very question. The present system of audit was established under the Act of 1866 (29 & 30 Vict., c. 39) "An Act to Consolidate the Duties of the Exchequer and Audit Departments; to regulate the Receipt, Custody, and Issue of Public Moneys, and to provide for the Audit of the Accounts thereof." When that Bill was read a second time the hon. Member for Peterborough said "it was practically an abolition of all control over the issues of Votes in Supply." And he

125
(Mr. White) then and now was of the same opinion. The question now raised, although dry, was, in its ultimate bearings, of deep interest to the taxpayers of this country. He must premise that he could not agree with the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) in his commendations of the previous system. How utterly inefficacious that system was would be admitted on the allowing of Mr. Anderson before the Select Committee on Public Accounts in 1866, to wit, that out of an army expenditure of upwards of £14,000,000 the Audit Board objected only to the appropriation of sundry items, together amounting to £295 5s. 10 d. Thus, this audit was really no audit of disbursements, but merely an examination of accounts. Again, under the old system Sir George Lewis, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that the Exchequer accounts were never audited, whilst the cost of the Audit Board was about £40,000 per annum. Under the new or re-organized system he (Mr. White) found that 127 persons were in the Audit Department at an annual charge of £42,000, an amount, he ventured to think, which ought to be adequate to secure the thorough performances of its very important duties. He regretted that the Audit Bill of 1866 had not been modified in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Moneys, to which Committee it had been specially referred. Their idea was that the public audit should be made a really great and independent Department of the State, but responsible only to the House of Commons for the proper performance of its duties. They were of opinion also that there ought to be an Assistant Auditor, possessing co-ordinate authority with the Auditor General, and hound, in case of difference, to report the same to the House. Now, however, all power and authority was vested in one officer, with the double title of Controller and Auditor General. He should hereafter show that the Controller and Auditor General was controlled by the Treasury, whoso issues he ostensibly controlled and whose accounts he ostensibly audited. Thirty-seven years ago Sir John Bowring was sent by the then Government to examine and report on the method of keeping and auditing the public accounts of France. He thought the late Ministry need not have disdained to copy from our neighbours in that respect, seeing that Mr. Cobden had told him that he considered the French system to be so far perfect that it had long
126
proved to be completely efficacious in providing against all malversation or misappropriation of the public moneys, He (Mr. White) was impressed with the conviction that the House must amend the present system of audit before it could get a practical control over the public expenditure. And the first step to be taken was to make the Audit Department entirely independent of the Treasury and alone responsible to the House of Commons. He held that the Auditor General should be permitted to appoint his own clerks and assistants as the Judges now did. Seeing that our normal expenditure was now £18,000,000 more per annum than it was a few years ago, he must be forgiven if he expressed a profound distrust in the Treasury as a supervising administrative department. It seemed to him an obvious anomaly that the Treasury should be empowered by the Act of 1866 to control the Controller and Auditor General. Our financial history was replete, unhappily, with gross frauds, malversations, and wrongful appropriations of public moneys. He found the first Return issued under the new audit was an account of the public income and expenditure, by which he learned the bare, unpleasant fact that the "excess of total expenditure over income in the year ended 31st March, 1868, was £2,166,023 13 s. 6d." It was true, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making his Fnancial Statement had blandly assured the House that he had exceeded the vast Estimates originally voted for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services. He (Mr. White) thought full printed explanations should be uniformly given for any expenditure not previously voted in Supply. And he would recommend to the Government, as a model for imitation, the Return moved for by the Secretary of State for India (Sir Stafford Northcote) in 1862, giving the amounts of excesses of Admiralty expenditure in the previous year, with the explanations assigned for those excesses by the Accountant General of the Navy. As illustrative of the practical dependence, the virtual subordination of the Audit Department to the Treasury, he would only refer to some of the clauses in the Act of 1866, under which it was now constituted. He found by Clause 8 of that Act that the Treasury was empowered to appoint officers and clerks, and to regulate their numbers and salaries. And by Clause 30 the Auditor-General, with consent of the Treasury, may dispense with an examination of vouchers. Besides this, by Clause

127
43, any Accountant dissatisfied with any disallowance or charge in his accounts made by the Auditor-General may appeal from his decision to the Treasury, who may direct the relief of the apellant, wholly or in part. And the same Clause declares that "the Controller and Auditor General shall govern himself accordingly." He would then ask was it not absurd to pretend that the present system of public audit was a valid and efficient one? With perfect confidence in the integrity of the present Controller and Auditor General (Sir William Dunbar) he could not help fearing, mayhap Borne years hence, there might be some startling evidence of the inefficacy of the present method of check and supervision of the public expenditure. Some of his hearers could not already have forgotten the gigantic Exchequer fraud perpetrated by Beaumont Smith. Besides, he (Mr. White) must remind the House that some men, and even officials too, have very misty notions of what were the functions or duties of an auditor. A remarkable instance came under the cognizance of the House only a few years back. The auditor of the Duchy of Lancaster—although holding a patent office—was summarily dismissed because he required to know whether the balance alleged to be lying at the banker's was really in their hands—the neglect of which simple precaution, by the way, enabled Pullinger to rob the Union Bank of £250,000. The Attorney General of the Duchy was asked by the Committee whether the auditor, if called upon by a Minute of the Chancellor, or Council of the Duchy, to sign a bill or document which, to his knowledge, was a misappropriation of the property, or contained any fraudulant act upon the property of the Duchy should do so, on the mere production of the Minute. The answer of the Attorney General of the Duchy was—
"Yes; I have no doubt, in his pure character of auditor, although he was aware the Chancellor had either committed a fraud in passing the Resolution, or had been imposed upon by fraud; if the Chancellor persisted in the Minute, it would be the auditor's duty to sign it."
He had said enough, but he trusted in no carping or captious spirit. His sincere desire was to secure such a system of public audit as should deserve the public confidence. The House should not forget what had happened, and what might happen, unless proper checks and safeguards were provided by Parliament. As custodians of the public purse they should ever remem-
128
ber the terse dictum of Lord Lyndhurst, "That jealousy, not confidence, is the eternally governing principle of the British Constitution."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was right that the House of Commons should be satisfied that the audit of the public accounts should be entirely independent; but had any case been made out against the independence of the Audit Department? The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) had so fully and clearly answered the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) on that point, that he (Mr. Hankey) had relieved him from a great part of the duty which otherwise it would have been incumbent on him to perform. There seemed to be some confusion in the minds of the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, and of the hon. and learned Baronet who seconded it, as to the functions of Controller and Auditor General. They had spoken of that officer as an accountant in one capacity and an auditor in another. Now, he did not understand in what sense the Controller and Auditor General was an accountant [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: As Controller General he is an accountant, but as Auditor he is not an accountant.] The hon. Member for Swansea said that the whole of the public money was paid into his account; no doubt the money was paid into the Exchequer acccount; but it should be remembered that the Controller and Auditor General had not the power of drawing money from that account. The Treasury had to make application to the Controller and Auditor General; and when he had satisfied himself of the legality of the demand, he gave credit to the Treasury for a certain amount. But when that was done it was the Treasury, and not the Controller and Auditor General, who were concerned with the issue of the money. When it was issued, then came in the function of the Controller and Auditor General as Auditor, to see that the money had been spent in accordance with the provisions of the Appropriation Act. It appeared to him that there was now a very proper and stringent system of check; and, as far as the Act had been tried, he must say it had worked well. He might remark that the present Government were not responsible for that Act, which was introduced by the late Government, and had received the sanction of the Committee on Public Accounts. The only fault, as far as he was aware, to be found with the Act, was that the alteration which it introduced

129
has been pressed forward somewhat too hurriedly; and the consequence was that no little difficulty had been experienced in giving effect to its provisions. In all other respects it had worked well. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) had shown the great improvement which had been brought about by the Act with regard to the check on the expenditure of the public money. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) had quoted certain expressions made use of by the hon. Member for Peterborough on the second reading of the Bill, previously to its being sent to the Committee on Public Accounts. The hon Member for Peterborough, however, served on that Committee; and if, after a careful examination of the Bill, he became satisfied with regard to its provisions, the hon. Member's more matured opinion ought surely to be taken in preference to that which he expressed on the second reading But it was said that the Controller and Auditor General was not really independent; and that was the point to which he would now address himself. Certainly, if he was not independent, he ought to be made so; but he maintained that he was independent, and he did not think there was any force in the arguments which had been; adduced this evening with the view of showing that he was not independent. It was true that he was appointed by the Government of the day; but so was every public functionary in this country. It was obvious, indeed, that the Crown must make the appointment; for he did not imagine that even the hon. Member would propose that the Controller and Auditor General should be elected by the House of Commons. It ought to be borne in mind that the Controller and Auditor General held his Office by patent during good behaviour, like the Judges of the land; and that, consequently, he could only be removed by an Address of both Houses of Parliament. As regards his tenure of Office, therefore, no one could deny that he was completely independent. But it was also alleged that he was not independent because he did not possess the power of appointing his own officers. Now, considerable difficulty would arise if a person who was debarred from sitting in that House had the appointment of officers in the Audit Department. But let the House consider what was the nature of those appointments. At present, if a vacancy occurred in the Department promotions were made; the result being that a junior clerk's place had to be filled up by
130
the Treasury; and the hon. Member would surely not pretend to say that the appointment of a junior clerk by the Treasury really interfered with the independence of the Controller and the Auditor General. The hon. Member, however, had remarked, and with truth, that a junior clerk might in course of time attain to the highest posts; but he had overlooked the circumstance that, under the Act, all promotions in and removals from the Office were entirely in the hands of the Controller and Auditor General. Consequently the officers were not dependent, in regard to their promotion, on the Government of the day. Then an objection was raised by the hon. Member that the Treasury bad the power of fixing the amount of the retiring allowance of the Controller and Auditor General and of other officers in the Department. Now, in point of fact, the Act prescribed the limits within which those allowances might be granted; or, if those provisions were not resorted to, the retiring pensions were to be granted under the General Superannuation Act. If any special pension were awarded to the Controller General, or any other officer in the public service, beyond the limits laid down in the Superannuation Act, it was necessary that a special Minute should be made and submitted to the House of Commons, which of course had then a full opportunity of considering the matter. In regard to the salaries in the Audit Office, it had been pointed out by his hon. Friend opposite that the Controller and Auditor General, not being a Member of that House, was unable to bring forward any Estimates for the salaries in his Office. The salaries bad to be submitted to a Vote of the House; and if the Treasury were to make them unduly high for the purpose of obtaining influence, the vigilance of the House would soon detect such proceedings. It could not, therefore, be said that this was a matter which really interfered with the independence of the Office. Allusion had been made to the Treasury determining what should be the form of the accounts. The Treasury had been endeavouring to adopt such forms of accounts as would correspond with the Estimates; and since the Treasury settled the form of the Estimates, it was desirable that they should settle the form of the accounts also. No great stress could be laid on that circumstance, which certainly did not interfere in any way with the independence of the Controller and Auditor General. He was of opinion that, by the operation of

131
the Act, the House would gain a complete knowledge of the manner in which the public money had been expended. At present it could hardly be said that the Act was in full operation; and he had been informed by those who were well acquainted with the subject, that three or four years would probably elapse before the system got into perfect working order. He did not say that it might not be necessary to introduce some modifications into the Act; but he must express his opinion that its principle was a sound one, and that, as far as experience went at present, it had worked remarkably well.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he was of opinion that a considerable improvement had been effected in the system of audit by the Act of 1866, for which the country was mainly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, but that it was still in some respects deficient. The Audit Department ought to be an independent one, responsible to Parliament alone, and its duty should be to see that the money voted in the House of Commons was applied to the purposes for which it was voted. Therefore, the Audit Department should be supreme in respect of audit over all other Departments, and responsible only to Parliament. Within his own Department the Auditor General ought to be supreme and independent. The Select Committee recommended that the Assistant Auditor General should have the power of reporting separately to Parliament; but it would have been most undesirable to give effect to that recommendation. It was inconsistent with one of the main objects of the measure, which was to substitute individual responsibility for the divided responsibility of a Board. The proposal was a sort of compromise between two things, either of which alone might have been desirable; but of the two he preferred individual responsibility. The matter is very clearly stated in the Correspondence laid before Parliament last year. It said—
"The main object of substituting for the Board of Audit a single chief with supreme authority in the Department, is to fix the whole responsibility of the due execution of all the duties upon one public officer. It is true the Bill emerged from the Select Committee with some important alterations. A power was given by it to the Assistant Controller and Auditor, to report jointly with the Auditor General. On what grounds this change was proposed by the Committee it was difficult to say, as they neither took evidence on the point, or made any allusion to it in their Report to the House. When the Bill came back in its amended form to the House,
132
it was pointed out by several Members, and among others by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that the proposal to assign co-ordinate functions to the assistant officer was inconsistent with the measure itself, one of the purposes of which was to substitute individual responsibility for the divided action of a Board. The Chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Bouverie) represented to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirableness, on public grounds, of omitting the provision in question. This suggestion met with Mr. Gladstone's ready acquiescence, as it was an admission of the soundness of the original views of the Government—that on the supercession of the Board of Audit, individual responsibility was the only alternative basis upon which the business of the Consolidated Exchequer and Audit Department could be satisfactorily conducted."
It did not seem a practicable proposal to have a Standing Committee of that House associated with the Auditor General, who would be able to throw responsibility upon them. The Auditor General should be the supreme and final authority us to the form in which the accounts should be made out. Much was said of "Departmental audit;" but that was simply an. Office examination of accounts, and could not be spoken of in the sense of an Appropriation audit, the object of which was to see that money was spent under proper authority from the Treasury. The audit of the India Office accounts was first intrusted to an auditor at £200 a year; a more adequate salary had since been paid, but it would be well if the India Office accounts were also submitted to Parliamentary audit. With regard to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he thought it was substantially right in its spirit; but, in his opinion, it was not necessary that it should then be pressed upon the consideration of the House.
MR. CHILDERSwished to say a few words on a question which had been brought forward so much to the public advantage by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). Many interesting questions had been raised in the debate, such as the audit of Indian expenditure and other matters, which would doubtless be again brought forward; but he would confine himself to two—namely, the importance of securing in the Executive Government a proper system of control over the public expenditure, and, in the Audit Department, a proper system of audit for the information of the House; and these two things had been in some respects a little confused. On the first he deprecated the language of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk, who said the House should be jealous of

133
the power of the Treasury over other Departments, and several hon. Member, perhaps without weighing their language, had spoken of the Treasury, as a great spending Department. Now there certainly were large spending Departments, and over these it was necessary that the House should strengthen the control of the Treasury, removing from it the idea that it was a spending Department and resisting the tendency to place the expenditure of money in the hands of the Treasury. If this were always done, the Treasury would be and should be considered the instrument of and fellow-worker with this House in the cause of economy; and, considering the little financial control now exercised by Parliament, if the House were jealous of the Treasury and gave expression to that jealousy, the Departments would be unrestrained. Coming to the question of audit, it was quite true that until 1833 the audit of the public accounts of the country was conducted simply for the Treasury, and for no one else. There was no Appropriation audit. All this was now at an end. By the Act of 1866 the whole of the public expenditure—and not only the Army and Navy Services and some Civil Votes which had been regulated by intervening Acts—will be subject to Appropriation audit. Instead of an irresponsible Board, an Auditor General, holding Office by the tenure of a Judge, had been appointed and he had absolute control over the promotion of his officers and the business of his Office. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) said that the Audit Department ought to communicate their accounts direct to Parliament. But the Act directed that the Audit Commissioners should send the accounts direct to Parliament in case the Treasury did not do so within a specified time. The hon. Member also said the Auditor General ought to have the power of selecting his officers. But, except first appointments of young men of eighteen or twenty, he had absolute power in the promotions of his officers, and could remove or dismiss them as he liked. As to the pension of the Auditor General, no doubt he was entitled to a fixed pension and to no more; but if he had served in any other public Department he would have a right to a fixed sum in regard to that service. The whole question resulted in whether or not any practicable amendment of the Act of 1866 could be suggested, or anything could be advanced which would justify them in altering it. But the result
134
of the working of that Act would not be apparent until next year, and it would be absurd to amend an Act before they had a practical experience of its working. Before 1866 questions respecting pensions, appointments, promotions, and so forth, were settled by the Treasury, and the Audit Board was a subordinate Department; but the Act of 1866 made that Board independent of the Treasury. It had been suggested that the clerks of the Audit Office ought to be appointed by this House, or by a Committee of the House, or by the Speaker; but he thought the House would pause before assuming patronage of that kind. He was as anxious as anybody could be to make the Audit Department independent, and to carry out reforms in the system. He believed that reforms might still be made with advantage in that system, but nothing had yet occurred to require amendment of the Act. Some remarks had been made as to the impropriety of placing officials or ex-officials on the Committee upon Public Accounts, The position he held upon that Committee was no doubt one of honour, but it also involved great trouble and labour, and he could only say that if any section of the House did not think he was likely to fill the position impartially he should very gladly relinquish it. If, however, all those who had had experience of the public accounts were to be withdrawn from the Committee, and if the duties cast upon the Committee in reference to audit were at the same time to be increased, he was afraid that the control over the public expenditure and accounts would take a much longer time to work out than it did at present. He hoped that under all the circumstances his hon. Friend would not divide the House upon an abstract Resolution.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was by no means satisfied with the explanation or the interpretation put upon the Act of 1866 by his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers). What he desired was to secure that, as far as possible, the audit of public accounts should be wholly independent of the influence of the Executive, and that was what was recommended by the Committee on Public Accounts, as an audit in connection with the Treasury gave the Executive a very obvious power of control. He had no wish to interfere with the free action of the Executive; all he wanted was to secure a complete Report to Parliament of how the money voted was expended. He should therefore feel it is duly to persist in his Motion.
MR. GLADSTONErose to make an appeal to his hon. Friend. He begged him to observe the position in which he proposed to place the House. The Motion consisted of two Resolutions, the first of which was—
"That those who conduct the audit of Public Accounts on behalf of the House of Commons ought to be independent of the Executive Government, and directly responsible to this House."
Now that was a proposition which was full of undeniable and sound doctrine. The Audit Department ought to act on the part of the House of Commons, and ought to be directly responsible to that House so far as it was in the power of the Executive Government to make it. It was impossible to deny that proposition, and why, then, should his hon. Friend make the House divide upon it? The only course that could be taken against his hon. Friend would be to move the Previous Question; but that was a course which he should be loth to adopt, as it would seem like placing an obstruction in the way of his hon. Friend, whose object was a rational one. When once the House had got a fair sample of the working of the Act of 1866 in the shape of the accounts produced under that Act, then, if there was a sentiment on the part of his hon. Friend or the House that there ought to be further inquiry and that further legislation might be needed, he should think it extremely unwise on the part of the Executive to place any obstacles in the way; because if there was any jealousy felt by the House of Commons, that jealousy would be sure to be stimulated by any resistance of the Government, even though plausible reasons might be given for that resistance. If a portion of the representatives of the people entertained jealousy and suspicion with respect to the machinery provided for auditing the public accounts, the existence of such feelings would be a good reason for granting any further inquiry which might be demanded. But his hon. Friend, he thought, would see that it was not desirable for the dignity of that House to call upon it to assert this first proposition as an abstract Resolution; for every one, whether on the Opposition or the Treasury Bench, must be of one mind with his hon. Friend on the subject. The second Resolution, as a matter of fact, was more doubtful. That Resolution was—
"That, inasmuch as the appointment, salaries, and pensions of the officers intrusted with the conduct of such audit are more or less under the
136
control of the Treasury, the present system is one which imperatively calls for revision."
Now, the words "more or less" made a very important difference, for if the salaries and pensions were "more" under the Treasury, or, in other words, if they were to a considerable degree under it, the system might call for revision. But if they were but little under the Treasury, the call for revision might not be so imperative. The House had not really got the facts to enable it to judge how the new system was working, and he thought it would be very disadvantageous to the cause which his hon. Friend had taken up if he were to insist on the House giving judgment before the materials of that judgment were in their hands. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would not force a division in a case in which the apparent weight of authority against him might produce an effect unfavourable to the object he had in view.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not resist the appeal which had been made to him by his right hon. Friend.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LOCAL CHARGES ON REAL PROPERTY.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, it was with no little diffidence that he rose to move the Resolution that stood in his name. The subject to which it referred created no inconsiderable interest at the present time. The principle which it involved was grave and important; and should it be necessary for him to make any apology to the House for introducing so difficult a question, his excuse must be that for many years he had interested himself in the administration of local burdens; that he had always felt strongly the injustice of the present mode of assessing them; and in the western counties, in which he resided, this subject had been very ably and very anxiously discussed. He advocated this proposal on the broad principles of right and justice. He was neither animated by any party or political spirit. He was happy to think that this question was quite remote from the arena of party politics. Neither was he influenced by class interests, for no man in that House felt more than he did that the prosperity of the community at large depended on that of every class; and he would be the last man to say or do anything which should be detrimental to any class whatever. The Resolution which

  137
  he had the honour to introduce affirmed three distinct propositions—namely, that the local burdens upon real property had of late years much increased, that they were annually increasing, and that it was neither just nor politic that those burdens should be laid exclusively on one description of property. Those local charges were now levied under the name of poor rates, and though the greater proportion were expended for the relief of the poor, yet a considerable amount of them might be denominated county rates, and were used for a variety of purposes. Those poor rates, therefore, were a general charge on real property for a variety, he might almost say an infinity, of purposes. Local taxation provided for police, militia, gaols and prisoners, lunatics, highways, bridges, coroners, weights and measures, vaccination, &c.; indeed, he might almost describe it as de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis. To show how local burdens had increased, he would give the statistics for every tenth year from 1837 to 1867. In 1837 the total amount expended was £5,412,000; in 1847£7,094.000; in 1857 £8,339,000; and in 1867 £10,905,000; so that in thirty years the amount had doubled. To go into particulars, the relief of the poor required in 1837 £4.044,000; in 1847 £5,298,000; in 1857 £5,898,000; and last year, £6,959,000; the total expenditure for local taxation having thus increased by more than n. half. The county rates amounted in 1837 to £1,168,000; in 1847 to £1.660,000; in 1857 to £2,241,000; and last year to £3,343,000; so that in thirty years they: had nearly trebled. These figures showed that local taxation had increased since 1837 by 100 per cent, the increase in the poor rate being 70, and in the county rate 200 per cent. One-third of the poor rate, it must be remembered, was now levied for purposes wholly unconnected with the relief of the poor. It might be thought that the increase was owing to the increased population; but he believed the poor were in every respect much better off, than they were thirty years ago. Nor could the increase be attributed to the higher price of the necessaries of life, for the price of wheat was in 1837 within 6d. per quarter the same price as it was last year. Of the £6,959,000 expended in the relief of the poor, the National Exchequer contributed £163,000, £110,000 being half the expense of medical officers, schoolmasters £35,000, and auditors £18,000.
  138
  The sum was small, but the principle was large; and the thin end of the wedge having been inserted, he thought the application of the principle might be extended. Now, in 1776, the first year for which any authentic Returns existed, local taxation amounted to only £1,720,000; the poor rate being £1,550,000. and the county rate £164,000. Besides the £11,000,000 to which he had referred, between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 were levied in the shape of poor rates, highway rates, and local board or improvement rates; so that upwards of £16,000,000 was levied in 1865 on real property, the annual value of that property being £90,000,000, and this was the latest date that all these official Returns were made up. It was bad enough to pay one income tax for Imperial purposes; but this direct, tax of £11,000,000, levied for poor rate and county rate alone upon an annual value of £90,000,000, was equivalent to a second income tax on real property of 2s. 6d. in the pound. To show that the burden was still increasing, he would compare the Returns for 1866 and 1867. In 1866 the poor and county rates amounted together to £9.989,000; while in 1867 they were £10,905.000, being an increase of nearly £1,000,000. The poor rate rose from £6,439,000, to £6,959,000, or 8·8 per cent; and the county rate from £3,549,000 to £3,945,000, or 11·2 per cent. Of the forty-six union counties or divisions of counties in England and Wales, there was only one—the East Riding of Yorkshire—which did not show a large increase in expenditure last year. In Middlesex there was an increase of 21 per cent, in Kent of 20 per cent, while in other counties the increase was considerable. There were, moreover, contingencies which threatened a further increase. He cordially agreed in the remark made by the Home Secretary a few nights ago, that any attempt to throw turnpike roads on rates would lead to a great outcry, especially at a time when so strong a feeling prevailed against any increase of local taxation. Amendments in the Poor Law were likewise likely to involve increased expenditure, Now, with regard to the relief of the poor, if we study the history of the Poor Laws from the earliest times to the reign of Elizabeth, we shall find contributions were voluntary, and were levied from counties rather than parishes, every inhabitant being exhorted and expected to contribute "according to his means and ability." That phrase was repeated in all Acts from

  139
  the reign of Henry VIII. until the 43rd of Elizabeth, and he contended that it was the language of reason, of justice, and of policy. By the Act of 43rd Elizabeth, passed in 1601, however, overseers and churchwardens were empowered to assess all property particularized therein, the contributions being made compulsory and parochial, and every parish, instead of every inhabitant, being expected to assist according to ability. That basis had undergone no alteration for nearly 300 years, and personal property not being mentioned in that Act, it had been exempted from taxation. Judges had held that all property to be assessable must be local, visible, and productive, and money and securities for money, not being local, had escaped taxation. There had been many appeals for the purpose of rating personal property. In 1775 the Judges gave it as their opinion that stock-in-trade was assessable; but it had never been practically or only partially carried out. In 1840 an Act of exemption was passed, and stock-in-trade had been exempt ever since. He gave no opinion whether it was right or desirable to assess stock-in-trade; there were many difficulties in the way which were perhaps insuperable. But was it creditable to a British House of Commons for thirty years to pass an annual Act of exemption rather than seriously consider the matter? The law was either good or bad: if good, it should be enforced; if bad, it should be modified. The Act of Elizabeth might be said to have dealt with the then existing state of things, both as regards property and society. Land and houses were at that time the chief, if not the only source of wealth. It was therefore not unreasonable that personal property should not be particularized. How different was the state of things now ! Real property was not more than one-third of the annual income of the country. In 1865 the annual rateable value of property was only £90,000,000, while the property assessed to the income tax in the same year was valued at £290,000,000, and the aggregate annual income of the country was upwards of £650,000,000; for it must be borne in mind that incomes under £100 per annum were not assessed. But the local taxation was assessed on this £90,000,000 only; in fact, £6 out of every £7 of the annual income of the kingdom escaped local taxation, and paid nothing to the relief of the poor. How had all these large incomes from personal property been acquired? From labour—from labour of
  140
  poor men—people make wealth. All capital was acquired by labour; why, then, should not wealth thus created contribute to the exigencies of the State and the relief of the poor, to the comfort of the afflicted, and maintenance of the aged, many of whom had worn themselves out, and spent the best part of their lives in acquiring for others wealth and affluence? The present state of things was most anomalous. The overseer called on every small cottage-holder for his poor rate, although he was little better off than those for whose benefit that rate was collected. They were, in fact, rating one pauper for the support of auother—robbing Peter to pay Paul; yet, hard by, in the same parish probably, there lived a man receiving £1,000 a year who did not pay a farthing towards the support of the poor. The present mode of assessment was most impolitic; it tended to discourage improvements in land, and to diminish produce, thus so far prejudicially affecting the community at large. A man purchasing a large estate, with the buildings dilapidated and the land undrained, invested a considerable sum in the necessary improvements, and was immediately assessed on those improvements. Why should he pay local taxation on the money thus invested more than if it had remained, perhaps, in the foreign funds? So again, a man who has taken a farm for fourteen years, he calculated the outgoings when he agreed for his rent. He found, unless he spent a large sum in manure and improvements, it would be a ruinous undertaking. He borrowed money for the purpose, and immediately the assessment committee came down upon him and made him pay local taxation on the personal property he had borrowed and invested in it. Surely these men, by investing additional capital in their estates, not only benefited themselves, but by increasing the produce of their land benefited the community at large. They were more patriotic and deserved more encouragement than the man who invested the same amount in foreign securities, buried, as it were, his talent in a napkin, sits down with folded arms, and is simply content to receive his own with usury. So long as land enjoyed exclusive privileges it was fair it should pay exclusive burdens; but, protection being removed, those exclusive burdens should cease. He was an advocate for Free Trade; but they had not got it. He considered all exceptional legislation was bad; and the principle of Free Trade having been adopted, he desired that

  141
  it should be carried out without favour and without partiality. All prohibitions and restrictions with regard to the produce and cultivation of the land ought to be removed Their efforts were paralyzed by the malt tax; yet they refused them a drop of good beer to cheer their drooping spirits. They were not allowed to grow tobacco; they were denied that solace, to render them oblivious to their grievances and their sense of injustice. What privileges were now attached to real property in compensation for the burdens to which they were exclusively subjected? He was willing to surrender the last rag of protection. Last Ssssion sheep dogs were taxed; and a few years since, because real property was exempt from probate duty, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire made real property amenable to a succession duty. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had brought in a Bill to rate mines, and he (Sir Massey Lopes) would assist in passing it. The possession of land was becoming a great luxury. No one who wanted an annual income from it would invest in land. So numerous were the outgoings, it could not pay more than 2 per cent. He remembered when in the West of England there was scarcely a parish which had not several small yeomen; their estates had; been handed down from generation to generation. They were the pride and boast of the county. They were the connecting link between the large landowner and the agricultural labourer. But year by year he regretted to find they were gradually being absorbed; and the same story was true of them all—the local taxation was too onerous for them; while at the same time their profits, through foreign competition, had diminished. Let the House compare the colossal fortunes accumulated by persons in trade with the small competency ever made in these days by agriculturists. In the one case wealth was acquired rapidly, and by the agency of others; in the other if a man, after a long life of labour and anxiety, could retire in his old age with a moderate competency, he deemed himself fortunate. Everyone, no doubt, admitted the injustice of the state of things to which he had directed attention, but declared that it was a difficult matter to deal with. It was therefore necessary, in his opinion, that the subject should be discussed, for without discussion a solution of the difficulties was not likely to be arrived at. He was an enemy to centralization; he
  142
  considered that local government was the essence of good government, and did not wish to see this system superseded by any other; but he asked whether it was not just that a larger proportion of the expenditure for such objects as police, the care of lunatics, and the administration of justice should be paid by the National Exchequer. If half the expense for those objects were defrayed out of the income tax, even then real property would pay more than half, because it would have to contribute its proportion to the Imperial taxation. By affording some such relief as this, the present mode of administration need not be interfered with—there would be the same local supervision, the same local responsibility, the same inducement to combine efficiency with economy. It was impossible for local taxation to go on increasing as it had done of late years, and he all borne by real property alone. The Militia was a national institution, and the owners and occupiers of land were no more interested in its maintenance than the owners of personal property. This impost ought therefore altogether to be paid out of the National Exchequer. He would not trouble the House by quoting the opinions of writers on political economy; but he would mention that the Report of the Lords' Committee on Parochial Assessments in 1850 set forth—
  "That the relief of the poor is a national object, towards which every description of property ought justly to be called upon to contribute, and that the Act of 43 Elizabeth contemplated such contribution according to the ability of every inhabitant."
  Sir George Lewis said, in Ins evidence before the Committee—
  "With regard to the general policy of imposing a local rate exclusively on one class of property, I am quite prepared to admit that unless it can be shown that there is some special reason in favour of a local tax, limited to real property, it is more fair and equitable to defray the expenditure out of a national tax, which should comprehend all species of property. The objections to a local tax upon real property exclusively have been so manifest upon the ground of the partiality of the incidence of the tax, that attempts have been made to devise local taxes which should be free from that defect."
  He would submit to the House that many of the objects for which local taxation was levied were objects in which the whole community were interested, and that, consequently, there was an equitable and moral and religious obligation on the whole community to contribute towards their ex-

  143
  pense; and that the present mode of assessment, which exclusively fell on real property, was not reconcilable with sound principles of political and financial economy, much less of justice. This was a question that must be fairly met and fairly considered. This was a difficulty which must be solved. This was a grievance which must be mitigated. He would now move his Resolution, feeling confidence in the principle of equity it embodied; in the sympathy of all classes of the community out-of-doors; and in the sense of justice which ever actuated their representatives in the British House of Commons.
  MR. CORRANCE,in rising to second the Resolution of his hon. Friend, said, he was conscious of doing so under certain disadvantages in this respect—first, that when he entered the House that night he had no intention of entering upon that debate and second, that he had his doubts as to the expediency of discussing it in so general a form as that. But when he heard the able statement of his hon. Friend, not only did those doubts cease, but he felt that there was no danger that the cause would suffer from any shortcomings on his part. But, if that was a personal disadvantage, it might not be so considered by the House; for it was at least a guarantee for this—he should not go into statistics, and his remarks would be brief. Now, he had said that he agreed with the hon. Member as to the fact, and he thought, also, that by the Lords' Committee of 1846 these were fully borne out. Those facts rested upon grounds absolutely irrefragable, as he thought. Nevertheless, that inquiry laid over a wide ground and took in a great range of both general and local taxation, each one of which, in detail, would require close investigation and patient proof. It included the incidence of income tax, land tax, tithes, and of local rates, and no less so the actual economic effect of such burdens upon the industry itself—and the effect of such deduction from the gross produce of such an industry of any reproductive class. Those perhaps were scarcely suspected, for use and custom reconciled them to much. They knew that they paid income tax upon the gross sum, without any deduction for agency or collection, or incidental expenses, which amounted to about 25 per cent. It reached the last farthing they possessed. Of the land tax they knew that it fell upon agriculture in a larger proportion than aught else; that it could only be re-adjusted within parochial limits, and that under the
  144
  power of redemption all expensive improvements could evade the tax; that in Liverpool and most large towns it was nominal at most, and that upon railways, canals, docks, &c, it was at once freed by redemption from the proportionate increase. All that was within demonstration and proof. They also learnt that under a system of local taxation, founded upon old and obsolete legislation, and perplexed by omission and doubts, the proportion of such charges upon land were immense—that one-sixth of the property of England alone contributed to such charges as that. But of each of such things the House would no doubt require proof beyond that which in that general discussion they were able to give. They must raise those questions in detail, and view in detail their rights. They must show not only the burden, but its effects; not only its pressure upon a class, but, its effects upon industry itself. Nor did he think that that would be a difficult task, if to the plain and accepted axiom of political economy, they might hope to have the consent of that House. To that they could claim the concurrence of Ricardo, who spoke thus—
  "It must be acknowledged that in the actual state of the poor rate, a usual larger amount falls upon the produce of the farmer, than on other classes in proportion to their respective profits. The farmers will, therefore, have less motive to devote his capital to land than to some other trade, unless the price of his produce is raised."
  Again—
  "Any tax, whether in the shape of land tax, or rate on producd when obtained, will increase the cost of produce, and will, unless under direct competition with other untaxed produce, raise its price to the consumer; but if, under any circumstances, the price of produce did not so rise as to compensate the cultivator for the tax, he would naturally quit a trade where his profits were reduced below the general level."
  Now these are axiomatic facts. Of all political economy they lie at the very root—no new reading could disturb or shake them, not even the authority of the hon. Member for Westminster himself. And if such be the case—if such, on inquiry fairly raised and fully carried out, they could prove—not that landlords were unfairly used, not that tenants were unjustly taxed, but that through a misunderstanding of the true economic position, a neglect of the plainest laws, capital was alienated and the industry depressed—he could, he thought with some confidence, seek in that House their redress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, inasmuch as the Local Charges on Real Property have of late years much increased and are annually increasing, it is neither just nor politic that all these burdens should be levied exclusively from this description of property."—(Sir Massey Lopes.)
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought they were all indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Westbury (Sir Massey Lopes) for having brought this subject under their notice, and for the able speech in which he introduced it. In reference to one remark the hon. Member made, he (Mr. M'Laren) agreed with him, and at once said that, in his opinion, nothing could be more absurd than to argue that questions of this kind should not be discussed in that House. If that were so, they need not assemble there at all. He thought they were obliged to the hon. Baronet also for the temperate and able way in which he stated his case. He (Mr. M'Laren) had however to say that there was another side to the question, mid he wished to say a few words upon it lest it might be supposed there was nothing to state. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Act of 43 Elizabeth as settling the Poor Law system; but he had not gone into all the questions affecting the land at the time, and their different relations and circumstances. If he had done so, it would have been quite obvious that the landlords had nothing to complain of. In the time of Queen Elizabeth there were no landowners; they were all landholders only. They held their lands from the Crown almost as leaseholders or tenants of the Crown. They received grants of their lands on condition that they performed certain duties to the Crown and the State. For example, they were to do all the fighting; they were to turn out with their retainers for the defence of the realm, there being then no standing army. They received the grants of their land on this further implied condition, that out of its produce they were to support the poor, who, they were told, on the highest authority, would never cease to exist in the land. Long afterwards, when the landholders had great power in both Houses of Parliament, they got a law passed—a most unrighteous law, he thought—by which they got rid of nil those burdens on the land, for a most inadequate consideration; and they afterwards agreed to pay, partly in lieu of them, a composition of 20 per cent on the rent of the land for ever, or 4s. in the pound on the real rent. In 1692, Commissioners
  146
  were directed to to take a complete survey of all the lands in the different counties of England, and it was enacted that the laud should pay 4s. in the pound on the rental, in consideration of the burdens which were formerly removed. The survey was made, and the bargain carried out—the landowners thus agreeing to pay one fifth of their whole rental from year to year as land tax. But no valuation was ever made after that year, and the land tax was levied today on the same valuation on which it was levied in the reign of William III, and the amount at which the land tax was then assessed, was the amount still payable, though it had risen ten-fold in value. If such a thing had occurred among the commercial classes, it would have been called a swindle instead of a grievance; and if the landholders were to act according to the moral obligation of the law passed in 1692 they would pay 4s. per pound on the whole value of the land at present time. And not only that, but they were also bound to support the poor. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Corrance) said that Liverpool and Manchester paid only 1d. in the pound of land tax once in twelve years, as though those communities derived a great benefit from that law; but the benefit had really been derived by the former landholders, who were converted into landowners. They told persons who wished to purchase land from them for building purposes that they would have only a small land tax to pay in lieu of the heavy burden to which it had been subjected, and they were thus enabled to sell the land for building purposes at a price which they never would otherwise have obtained. It had been said that the income tax pressed heavily on the land; but that was one of the greatest fallacies imaginable. Take the case of a landowner possessed of an estate worth £30,000. and deriving from it an income of £1,000 a year, on which he paid income tax, and compare it with the case of a physician who made £1,000 a year by hard work, which would shorten his life—he paid the tax in the very same way and to the same amount as the landowner. But suppose the physician lived up to his income, as probably he was obliged to do; when he died, his income died with him, and nothing remained for his family; but when the landowner died, his property, worth £30,000, remained and descended to his heirs. He (Mr. M'Laren) took the liberty of stating his conviction that this class of questions must come up for future

  147
  consideration, and for the purpose of increasing the burdens on land, and thus placing the taxation on a more equitable system than now prevailed. He might refer to the example of America. There, a man's property was calculated and assessed as on a capital sum. A merchant would have to pay on the amount of his capital assessed at a certain rate. A professional man would be assessed in the same way on any capital he had, and for a sum which was merely nominal as compared with the assessment on the merchant or landowner. That he held to be a far more just plan than the income tax in this country. He did hope that a change would take place, but that it would increase the burdens on land and relieve others who were unjustly assessed from the undue proportion they now paid. As to the charges on land for the support of the Militia, they were mere fragments of the far more onerous and important burdens formerly laid on the landholders, who, as he had said, were once bound to furnish all the fighting men of the country at their own expense. The trifle they had now to pay for the Militia was a mere remembrance of the time when more righteous laws prevailed, and a sign of hope that a return might be hereafter made to a more equitable system of legislation.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he had listened with pleasure—he thought he might say in common with the House at large—to the speech of his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes), which had dealt so fully with the facts and figures of the question as materially to smooth the way of speakers later in the debate. He would not attempt to deal with the very important question before the House in the off-hand and abstract manner in which it had been dealt with by the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. M'Laren), nor would he enter into a contention with the hon. Member as to the distinction without difference between landowners and landholders; but would merely observe upon that point that, with regard to liability to the payment of rates, he had always understood that they were upon precisely the same footing. His hon. Friend who brought forward the Motion dwelt much upon those burdens that affected the land from which other species of property was exempt. Now, it was to one class of exempted property which he wished in the first place to refer—namely, mines other than coal mines, and he wished to point out the position which the Courts of Law
  148
  had taken up with regard to it, and how it had been regarded by eminent authorities in this House. With regard to the Courts of Law, it had been laid down as early as the time of Lord Mansfield that all kinds of property which were not specially named in the statute of Elizabeth as rateable for the relief of the poor were exempt from that burden; and the law was therefore held to exempt all mines other than coal mines. The efforts of the Courts of late years had been to extricate themselves from the difficulties they had by their own decisions created for themselves; and when a case was heard in the Court of Exchequer Chambers as to the rating of a metallic mine, the Judges held that, were the question not incumbered by previous decisions, they would have decided in favour of the rating of these mines. The Courts, therefore, were in this position—they had given an interpretation to the law which they did not now agree in; but because this had been once given they lacked courage to reverse it. Decided opinions had been frequently expressed upon this question, both by Committees of the House and also by influential Members in debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), then the President of the Poor Law Board, speaking in the House, a couple of years ago, with reference to the important decision given in the Mersey Dock case, and its probable result upon property hitherto exempted from taxation, said the House should understand, not that the law was unjust or that fresh legislation was requisite, but that there had been a misconstruction of the law, and that all exemptions were mere questions of privilege and favour. As soon as the area of changeability was extended by the recent Act, from the Parish to the Union, it became evident that the exemption of personal property would be questioned, and that the House would be forced to consider the policy of that exemption. It was promised, indeed, at the time, that the matter should engage the serious attention of the Poor Law Board; but from that day to this nothing further had been heard upon the subject. The law as it stood recognized a liability upon two grounds; but only the first of these—that arising in respect of the occupation of land—appeared to have been borne in mind; but the House must remember the second subject—namely, the liability of inhabitants to the rate in respect of the enjoyment of per-

  149
  sonal property. This question, however, was a growing question, and the House and the country were both becoming more competent to understand its important bearings. This result was in large measure attributable to the action of those valuable institutions, the Chambers of Agriculture, to which the House had only done justice the other day in sanctioning, by inference at least, their claim to some share in the administration of local affairs. This question of liability to taxation and the increase of local burdens was one constantly occupying the attention of those Chambers, and at no distant day the House would likewise be compelled to face the difficulties which appeared to stand in the way of the removal of exemptions. He trusted that this question would receive the attention of the Poor Law Board, and that the House would be furnished with information in the shape of a Report from that Department which would guide them in arriving at a solution of this matter.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that though the pro sent discussion was not likely to lead to any practical result immediately, the question was one to which it was light to draw the attention of the House and the public. There could be no doubt, in his opinion, that landed property did enjoy comparative exemption from taxation. He was not now speaking of local taxes, nor was he omitting, as was too often done, to draw the proper distinction between landed property and real property. Some persons spoke as if real property and lauded property were in all cases the same thing; but real property in towns was a thing of a totally different character from real property in land. The owners of houses in towns did not represent landed, but personal property. The capital value of land had risen enormously, in many instances, he admitted, by an application of the capital of the landlord; but while the income of land had risen perhaps 10 per cent, the capital value of the land had risen 30 or 40 per cent. Great attention had been challenged for the income tax. Now, he held that, in reality, the land enjoyed a considerable exemption from that tax. The farmer paid on an income measured at half the rent of his holding. Let them take the case of a fanner holding 300 acres and paying a rent of £450 a year. That man paid income tax on an income of £225 a year. Now, would anyone acquainted with land, tell him that a farmer holding 300 acres, and having, say, £3,000 to work his
  150
  farm, did not make much more than £225 a year income? [Dissent.] He could understand that Gentlemen might dissent from his proposition if they calculated income in the way the farmers themselves did. The farmers only calculated in that category what they had over and above all farming expenses and the maintenance of themselves and families. But that was not the way in which the people of towns were allowed to calculate their income for the purposes of income tax. With the farmer his income was his net profit after everything was paid. As to enclosures, he admitted that the old enclosures paid heavily, but lands recently enclosed paid very differently. The redemption process had nothing to do with relieving lands from future taxation. The intention was that by that process a man bought up the taxes he had to pay at the time. The houses of country gentlemen in agricultural districts were taxed very much lower than similar houses in towns. He denied that what they paid in poor rates gave the owners and occupiers of land any claim for the comparative exemption from income tax which they now enjoyed. If they had no poor rates to pay, wages must increase, or the landlords and the tenants between them must make some other provision for their poor. As to rating stock-in-trade, he contended that it could not be done without rating agricultural stock also. He admitted that when an agricultural district was brought into the same area of taxation as a town district, the former suffered considerable injustice: because, assuming that the landlord had nothing but his property, he would have to pay on the whole of that, while the owner of the town house would only pay on a tithe of his property. Much stress had been laid on the fact of county rate being paid in she agricultural districts, as if that charge was one in itself incident on the land; but it must be remembered that a great deal of the county rate was paid by houses. Agricultural districts, no doubt, paid more towards the police rate and the maintenance of gaols; but his own opinion was, that taking into consideration the present adjustment of local and Imperial taxation, it would be found that the owners of real and landed property did not pay anything more than they ought to pay. The whole subject was one deserving of careful consideration, and he trusted that it would be again brought under the notice of the House next Session.
  MR. READsaid, he regretted to have to differ from so high an historical authority as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren); but his reading of history was that, previous to the Reformation, it was the monasteries and other religious institutions, and not the land, which maintained the poor. The arguments with reference to the income tax applied with equal force to the moneyed interest and other holders of property as to the land. And he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) that the tenant-farmers were unduly exempted from the payment of income tax, because they were assessed on only half the amount of their rent. On the contrary, he was of opinion that they were assessed very fully and amply. The hon. Gentleman had argued that the stock-in-trade of farmers ought to be assessed if the stock-in-trade of other persons were to contribute to the rates; but on this point he begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that stock-in-trade in agriculture was supposed in the eye of the law to be assessed in order to produce the rent paid to the landlord. In addition to the two exemptions of real property already named—mines and woodlands—from rating, there was a third exemption. The owner of real property by overstocking his land with game so deteriorated the rent as to allow that land to escape its fair assessment and contribute its fair share to the maintenance of the poor. In America the assessment was not on the annual rent, but on the annual profit. The hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) had proved by statistics that the rates gradually and constantly increased. Several items of new local taxation had been introduced, and more were expected if turnpikes and education were to be paid out of the rates. The farmers were twitted with this—What a bother you make when you pay anything in the shape of rates ! Why, what a bother and fuss was made when an additional income tax of a 1d. was imposed ! But every 1d. rate which the farmer paid was equal to 2d. of the income tax. It was said that if the farmers were relieved from the charges they now had to bear the landlords would reap all the benefits; but he, on the contrary, felt assured that all small savings would go into the pockets of the tenants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other day in reply to a deputation that the tax on shepherds' dogs was not on the shepherd, but on the farmer, and therefore
  152
  he supposed that those who argued that all rates fell on the owner would say if the farmer paid 10 s. for a tax on two dogs it was a burden on the landlord. With regard to a national rate, he thought it ought to be particularly guarded against. It was impossible to restrict extravagance or to prevent centralization. If they could possibly localize the income tax it would have a good effect, and a certain portion might be applied to local expenditure. The assistance given to local taxation from the Consolidated Fund in 1866 amounted to £1,398,000, and out of that sum only £211,000 went to the country for police purposes, while the metropolis received £176,000 for the same object. Then with respect to lunatics. What had the land particularly to do with them? In the country, it was said, the management rested with the county authorities. But the moment any saving was proposed, down came a Government officer in the shape of a Commissioner, and ordered what must be done. The result was that as soon as a poor patient was cured by luxuries and comfort, he was sent away, and when he returned to the rough usage of the cottage he speedily relapsed. The lunatic was cured for a time, but very seldom permanently. He thought that many of these fixed charges ought to be borne by the nation, but that all relief to the casual poor should be paid by the district. This was no question of country against town; but he thought the towns ought to take up the case even more readily than the country. It was essentially the case of the poor man, and was more likely to receive in a Parliament elected by household suffrage a fair and generous consideration than in the present.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, the hon. Baronet who had introduced the Motion (Sir Massey Lopes) had rendered a real service to the House and the country, for no one who had considered the subject could doubt that it required a much more systematic and deliberate consideration than it had yet received, not only on account of its great importance and the amount of taxation it involved, but because its importance was constantly increasing. In the natural progress of things more and more duties were continually being imposed on the Government, which duties would be almost always best performed by the localities, and at the same time, as the taxation of localities must constantly increase in order to meet increasing expenses, if there

  153
  was any injustice in this taxation it must be an increasing injustice. The hon. Baronet, and those who took his view, thought that the local taxation was entirely borne by real property; but he (Mr. Stuart Mill) conceived that although real property bore an extra proportion of that taxation, it by no means bore the whole. The local charges consisted of two parts, one of which was proportional to the rent of land, and was therefore equivalent to a tax on land, the other was proportional to the rent of houses, and equivalent to a house tax. Now, a house tax did not fall on the owner, but on the occupier, and within moderate bounds was one of the fairest of all possible taxes, and one of those that came nearest to a perfectly fair income tax. Indeed, the house rent a person was able to pay was probably a better measure of what he could afford to spend, than could be afforded by the mere numerical amount in pounds sterling of his income. So far as the house tax fell on the ground rent it was a charge on property; but the ground rent bore only a small proportion to the whole rent of a house, except in cases of peculiar eligibility of situation, which favourable situations were a kind of wealth having a constant tendency to increase without any labour or outlay on the part of the owner, and therefore a fair subject for some degree of special taxation. He admitted that in most of the rural districts the burden was mainly on the rent of land; but he did not think the grievance so great as had been represented, because the prescriptive, and what might almost be called the constitutional mode of levying local taxation was to levy it on rental, and property had generally been acquired by in heritance or purchase, subject to that peculiar burden. If the burdens on land had a tendency to increase by the progress of society, so had the income from land, and income derived from real property was nearly the only one which increased by the effects of the industry, outlay, privation, and frugality of other persons than the owners; and inasmuch as the value of land did constantly increase from generation to generation, and the income from it increased independently of exertion or outlay on the part of the owners, this made it fair to regard it as in some degree a proper subject for increasing taxation. No one could doubt that the time had come when the whole subject of local taxation must be more fully considered. If they considered that portion of taxation which he thought
  154
  fair in principle—namely, the house tax—they would find that this had become so heavy in many localities that the difficulty of increasing it had become a serious obstacle to any new outlay for general improvements. How it was possible to raise the additional sums that might be required in a manner less burdensome, because more equal and just, would have to be more and more seriously considered, and the different modes by which this could be accomplished would have to be well meditated. One mode, which had been partially adopted I in this country, deserved consideration as one of the possible modes—namely, that of placing a certain proportion of some of these burdens on the general taxation of the country; for when this was done in the way of a fixed proportion it did not destroy, although it might weaken, those motives to economical legislation which so strongly recommended making these expenses local rather than general. There were great difficulties in adjusting the amounts of taxation on the various descriptions of property, and these questions would probably occupy their minds for a long time to come. He was glad that the hon. Baronet had introduced this subject to the House, and no doubt it would be seriously considered by the new Parliament. In the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) there was one principle which, if adopted, would involve an injustice—it was that of taxing terminable incomes, he did not mean at a lower rate than permanent ones, for that he entirely approved of, but of taxing them only according to their capitalized value. That would be a great injustice; but this was not the time for further discussing that principle.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, one of the characteristics of this debate was, that the question had been discussed without any party feeling, and therefore it had received much fairer and more impartial consideration than many other subjects of late. In the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), which was marked by the hon. Gentleman's usual ability, were some remarks with which he (Mr, Floyer) could not agree. He could not concur in the inference drawn by the hon. Member from the increased value of the land in certain districts. There might be some fortunate proprietors whose land had increased much in value in consequence of the improved condition of the country at large; but if an inquiry were instituted into the outlay

  155
  and large expenditure upon different properties, it would be found that the return for those outlays was by no means beyond the limits of a fair and moderate return; but it was rather a smaller return than was generally received by those who invested their capital in trade and commerce. He doubted whether any hon. Member who had not really turned his attention to that point could form a conception of the enormous outlay that was being constantly made in this country by those who were in the occupation of land. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), in his remarks, had made a frank and liberal admission. That hon. Gentleman said he thought that the land was charged with burdens, in the shape of local taxation, beyond those which it deserved to bear. He (Mr. Floyer) thanked the hon. Gentleman for that admission; but there were some points of his speech with which he could not agree. The hon. Member drew a comparison between the position of householders and the occupiers of land in respect to the income tax; and he said that in the one case the occupier of land only paid on half the value of his holding, whereas the householder paid upon the whole value; but the hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten the landlords' income tax, which was paid upon the full value of the land. So that in effect it might be said that there were one-and-a-half payments of income tax from the land, whilst there was but one payment from the house. The hon. Member for Oxford also observed that he considered that the payment of poor rates ought to be looked upon by the landowners and occupiers as a provision for the old and infirm people who had outlived their strength for work, but who passed their best days in labouring for the improvement of their farms. He (Mr. Floyer) trusted so long as the poor existed upon the land—and they had the highest authority for knowing that they would never cease out of it—that they would be looked upon, by both landowners and occupiers, in the kindest spirit, and with the feeling that it was through the labours of the poor they had derived their incomes and the land had been made profitable to them. The question, however, was very much open to doubt, whether a larger proportion of the labeuring classes were not employed by the manufacturing and commercial population than by the occupiers of land. He believed that the statistics would show such
  156
  to be the fact. Therefore, as the land round towns was assessed it had to contribute, under recent legislation, largely to the support of those who had once been employed in commercial and trading operations, but who had now become old and helpless. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) drew a historical parallel between the liabilities to charges thrown upon landowners and landholders as compared with the other portions of the population who were engaged in manufacturing and commercial operations; and, in referring to very early times he mentioned, amongst other things, the liability of landholders and their retainers to serve in the wars under the Crown. It was true that a certain portion of the land of the country had been held upon what was called knight service—that was, that the owners and occupiers were obliged to serve their Sovereign in the event of war at home or abroad; but the hon. Gentleman had forgotten to tell them that a large portion of the land was held by persons on free socage, and who were not liable to knight service. Besides, it should be also recollected that those who were actually employed in knight service received for such service from the Crown ample payment for the services they had so rendered. It was, therefore, a mistake to suppose that such service was gratuitously rendered. He (Mr. Floyer) denied that the payment of the land tax was a commutation for the services to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh referred. The fact was, those feudal tenures had been done away with at an early period of the reign of Charles II. Therefore, the land tax, which was imposed at the time of William III., could not be considered as a commutation or substitute for those liabilities and charges previously imposed on them. Then the hon. Member had made an error in his comparison of the charges imposed on the different classes. He had chosen to estimate the impost on landed proprietors at something like 20 per cent of their incomes; but history would show him that merchants and manufacturers paid more; for they had to pay fifteenths not only upon their incomes, but on their whole personal property. The hon. Member had, therefore, failed to make out that in olden times merchants and manufacturers were taxed less heavily than those who had to do with the land. As a matter of fact, the very reverse was the case. There was no doubt that a strong feeling existed in this country that the limits of

  157
  local taxation had been exceeded. The increase in the local rates had far outstripped the advance in the income tax. Occupiers of land felt they had now nothing to depend upon but their own skill and industry; but, however much it was desired to relieve the tillers of the soil from unnecessary pressure, it must be admitted that if grants from the Imperial Treasury were made to supplement local funds, it would be difficult to insist on local management. He heartily endorsed what had been said by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read) and others as to the immense importance of maintaining our system of local management. It was absolutely necessary that local attention should be paid to the several cases which demanded Poor Law relief. If they had not the advantage of local knowledge in the administration of this relief, the only resource would be to come back to the severe test applied by the workhouse principle, which was that intended originally by the first promoters of this system; and that was one to which he believed the country would never return. He believed the direction in which they should look for relief was that of the Imperial Treasury, to obtain from it a larger contribution towards some of those expenses in which the local action of the country or the local occupiers had no personal or particular interest—he alluded to the lunatic asylums, the police, and other matters of Imperial and general interest. In those respects he thought that assistance fairly given from the Imperial funds was absolutely essential, without infringing on any of those great and important principles of local management.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEthanked the hon. Member (Sir Massey Lopes) for bringing forward the subject, which it was quite true excited great interest, and was very much debated in the whole of the West of England. He desired to assure the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) that those who had given any consideration to this subject had never denied that houses and lands were in the same position as regarded this question, and he was glad that the owners and occupiers of houses had at length began to speak out upon it. As Sir Robert Walpole had once said, the country gentlemen were like their own sheep, because they would submit without speaking to any amount of shearing, whereas the commercial interests of the country more
  158
  resembled the hog, which would not permit one of its bristles to be touched without loudly calling upon you to desist. In that remark there was sonic truth, even at the present day. The late Lord: Brougham truly observed that the income raised for the relief of the poor was paid entirely by the land, people in trade only paying to the poor in so far us they were owners of real property, and thus a manufacturer deriving £10,000 or £12,000 a year from trade was rated as if he only had a large building worth £400 or £500 a year. The farmer, on the other hand, paid largely to the rates; and yet, while the farmer employed few hands, the manufacturer employed a whole colony; and while the farmer caused no material augmentation to the number of paupers, the manufacturer multiplied them by wholesale. On the part of the agricultural interest he did not demand relief from any payment which they were equitably bound to make. All he contended for was that equal justice ought to be meted out to all taxpayers of the country alike.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that when he held Office at the Poor Law Board, his attention was called to the subject of exemptions from rates, and but for the pressure of business on the Department it was hoped last winter that something might have been done to remedy some of the anomalies which still existed. The subject was a great and growing one, which would doubtless form the subject of future debates in this House. At the same tune he thought there were certain objections to the form of the Motion which had been made, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman who had introduced it would do well to rest satisfied with the cordiality and unanimity of opinion which it had called forth from the Gentlemen on both sides of the House. He was glad to find that there was such general recognition of the burdens borne by the rateable property of the country, and that there was at the same time a general unwillingness to diminish local control and management of local concerns. That was a matter of material importance, and he was glad that hon. Gentlemen were unwilling to sacrifice it for the theoretical advantages of a system of national rating. That was a state of things from which they were, he trusted, far removed, and it would he hoped be long before they looked for a remedy in that direction. The Union Chargeability Act was a step in that direction it was

  159
  true, but it was only a very little step, and it was a great part of the policy of the promoters of that Act that the area of charge would still remain coterminous with the area of management. He was glad to be able to admit, and his admission was all the more unprejudiced, as he originally viewed that Act with little favour, that in many cases the effect of that measure had been the reverse of what had been anticipated, and that extravagance of management had not resulted from its adoption. Much as he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir Massey Lopes), he was far from wishing to see local burdens levied upon anything but locally rateable property. There were certain exemptions from rating which he agreed should be got rid of; but those exemptions might be counted on the fingers. He did not think that the plausible suggestion which had been thrown out—that stock-in-trade should be rated—was practicable. The system had been tried in Scotland, and he believed to a certain extent still existed in that country. But it was found impracticable to rate stock-in-trade, and it was, he believed, exempted by Act of Parliament. The evidence of Sir George Lewis, given before a Committee of the House of Lords fifteen or sixteen years ago, showed that such a plan would weigh very severely upon the farmer, while in the towns it would not have such an effect in equalizing burdens as was commonly supposed. In this as in many other matters the circumstances of the town and of the country were very different. In the towns the poor rate assessment was in fact equivalent to a house tax, and that, of a very severe and oppressive character. He did not, indeed, see how taxation could weigh more heavily than it did even now in many parts of the metropolis. The charge for relief of the poor had existed from the time of Elizabeth as a charge upon the visible property of a town, and he believed the maintenance of the pauper was a charge from which the owners of visible property would never shrink. There were other charges, however, which he thought were most unfair on the poor rates, and Parliament would act wisely in preventing the addition of more of such charges. With regard to the question of lunatic asylums, it was obvious that, so far as those asylums were places for the maintenance of the indigent poor, the charge was one which could be fairly home by the real property of the district in which the asylum was situated. But,
  160
  so far as the asylum was a place provided by the humanity of the age, with special appliances and skilled superintendence for the treatment of the unfortunate class placed within its walls, he thought the charge should be made upon the general taxation of the country. It was a matter not of local, but of general necessity and convenience. It was proper, too, that there should be a contribution from the Imperial funds in aid of the maintenance of constabulary forces. An important question, that of the education rate, was looming in the distance. He had a strong objection to an education rate levied as such upon the owners of rateable property; but he did not wish to enter into that discussion now, He merely quoted it as an instance in which Parliament might interfere to prevent what he thought would be a great injustice. It was not easy to see whether householders in towns or landholders and others in counties were subjected to the moat oppressive burdens. The whole subject was one of great interest and importance, but, while he thanked his hon. Friend for bringing it forward, he thought that, looking to the words of the Motion, it would not be well to press it. The exemptions from rateability were few. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hoped to have introduced a Bill respecting the exemption of Government property—a subject which had been already reported upon by a Select Committee. With a few exceptions of palaces and great public Offices, he believed that that exemption might be got rid of. Then it had been said that in cases where much game existed the land was under-rated, and a partial exemption was thereby created; but he did not see any reason why that point could not be dealt with by the Assessment Committees. As to the exemptions of mineral property his hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had prepared a measure which might perhaps pass the House this Session; and the exemptions in the case of timber might also be dealt with. But these exemptions, if abolished, would not amount to anything like the relief sought for by his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes), and those who thought that personal property might be the subject of rating.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, very great objection was felt by many people to the constitution of the boards which were intrusted with the management of lunatic asylums. They were not responsible either

  161
  to the House or to the Government, and he would strongly recommend that they should be brought more under the control of the Home Office, or the Poor Law Board.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, in reply, that his object in introducing this subject was not to gain a barren victory, but to promote a discussion which might bear fruit hereafter, and he thought there was every probability that this expectation would be realized. With regard to the Act of Elizabeth, he reminded the House that it only referred to the poor rate, not to the county rate, police rate, and highway rate; and he thought that if new charges, unknown to the framers of the Act of Elizabeth, were now levied without its sanction, new forms of productive property, which had sprung into existence since that time ought to bear their share of these new burdens. He could not agree with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate)—namely, that land enjoyed a considerable exemption from the income tax, because the farmer paid only one-half the amount of his rent. On the contrary, he was of opinion that this tax fell more heavily on land than on personal property. The owner of a farm or house was assessed on his gross rental. No allowance was made for repairs, insurance, agency, or arrears, and therefore he invariably paid a larger percentage to the income tax than his net receipts. The assessment on the occupier was an arbitrary one, whether he made any profits or not; whereas, on the contrary, incomes from trades and professions were were ascertained by the voluntary declaration of the recipients—they were allowed to make their own returns. Thanking both sides of the House for the manner in which this subject had been treated, with an entire absence of party feeling, he begged to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY COURTS (ADMIRALTY JURIS DICTION) (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Norwood, Mr. Headlam, Mr. Candlish.)
COUNTY COURTS (ADMIRALTY JURIS DICTION) (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 94.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that he was reluctant to initiate opposition to a Bill introduced by his hon.
  162
  Friend (Mr. Norwood) to which the Government were giving, if not an active support, at least, a tacit acquiescence. He felt bound, however, to ask the Government whether they had fully considered the scope and extent of the Bill, and the important transfer of jurisdiction which it contemplated. He felt the more justified in asking this question on account of the policy of the Government upon other questions. Upon a very important subject the Government had expressed their opinion that it was unwise to legislate before the Report of a Royal Commission which was sitting upon that subject, although the powers of that Commission did not enable it to deal fully with the question in all its bearings. But, in this case, how stood the matter? This Bill proposed to transfer the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts to the Comity Courts, But only in September last, a Royal Commission was issued, which was directed to make full inquiry into the operation and effect of the constitution of all the principal Law Courts (among which were specially enumerated the "High Court of Admiralty in England and the Admiralty Court of the Cinque Ports "), with full powers, to report whether by separation of jurisdiction or otherwise, provision might be made for the more speedy, economical and satisfactory dispatch of the judicial business now transacted by the same Courts. That Commission would, ere long, report, and in what position would the House be if its recommendations should turn out to be entirely opposed to the present Bill? The County Courts were originally formed in order to give cheap law to the people. The law given might have been cheap; but inasmuch as the salaries of County Court Judges were not such as to secure the highest legal talent, he was inclined to believe the information which had reached him to the effect that such law was not very certain or satisfactory. And if, to the cases now tried in the County Courts, the House now added a very numerous and important class of cases such as those contemplated in the Bill, the interests of those who at present occupied the time of the County Courts might possibly be neglected, or, at all events, the law dealt out to them was not likely to be more certain and more satisfactory. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) understood that what was really required was a local Court, whose decisions, upon the spot, could be speedily and economically obtained. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugesseu) re-

  163
  presented a large class of persons interested upon this question—namely, the boatmen of Deal and of the Kent Coast. ["Hear, hear!"] He understood that cheer, and he wished to say that, although much abuse had been showered upon the Deal boatmen by anonymous writers in the public Press, he was prepared to say that those men were as brave, as enduring, and, as a body, as honest a class of men as could be found. He did not desire to introduce irrelevant matter upon this Bill; but if those who abused the boatmen in the Press should ever bring the matter before the House of Commons, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would be ready to defend them boldly in his place. And what did these men ask? That salvage cases and matters in which they were concerned should be tried by nautical men who understood such matters rather than by lawyers who knew nothing about them. He would give an instance of what he meant. He had lately been at Deal when lbs afternoon was fine and calm, but at night there was rough weather and a real gale, during which time the boatmen were out, risking their lives and their properties for the sake of saving the lives and properties of others. Now, these men would rather have their claims dealt with by a local Board upon the spot, composed of naval men who knew the circumstances of the case, than by some County Court Judge who had been sleeping quietly in his bed some miles inland, and could hardly understand the perils to which they had been subject. With great respect to the County Court Judges, they were not persons likely to understand these matters. And then came the serious question of delay. The County Court might not be sitting for some days after a case occurred, and was the captain of a ship to be delayed until the sitting of this Court? Such delay would be most detrimental. Now there was, in the Cinque Ports, a Court appointed by the authority of the Lord Warden, composed of naval men and merchants, quite competent to try and decide these cases—they were summoned at two hours' notice—they were bound to meet within twenty-four hours, and were sworn before trying a case. What Court could be more speedy or more economical? Formerly, this Court dealt with these cases largely, but some fifteen years ago, a Lloyd's agent had been sent to Deal, before whom parties preferred to go for arbitration, because the awards he gave were generally larger than those of the old Court. But, if properly
  164
  worked, this Court was admirably fitted to serve as a local Court to deal with these matters. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would prefer that, upon general principles, legislation upon this subject should he postponed. But, if the House determined to go into Committee, he should feel bound to move words which would prevent the abolition of the Lord Warden's Court, which might, at least, exist as a concurrent jurisdiction with the Comity Court, so that people should not be driven to the latter if they preferred to settle their business before the former. If the House determined to abolish the Lord Warden's Court, it would be his duty to urge the claims to compensation of the officers who had vested rights in such Court. He hoped, however, that the Court would be left in existence, and in what he had said, he felt that he had been doing his duty to his constituents and also to the country.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, as it might be convenient that the House should know what course the Government proposed to take, he rose thus early in the debate. His hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had made a speech which would have been more appropriate on the second reading. If his hon. Friend had been in the House when the Bill was read a second time, he might have been saved the trouble of making many of the observations he had just delivered, because similar remarks had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond, and were answered by the Government at the time. It was unnecessary for him to defend the course of those who desired to legislate upon this subject while a Commission was inquiring into it, seeing that on a more important question than this, the House was willing to legislate without waiting until the Commission now sitting upon it had made their Report. The reason why the Government had assented to the second reading of this Bill was that they had been informed that there was considerable pressure for legislation upon this subject. The provisions of the Bill were only intended to serve a temporary purpose, and they could be easily altered in the event of their being inconsistent with the recommendations in the Report of the Commission. He agreed with the hon. Member that the boatmen of the ports on the East and South coasts were a much abused race, and probably they deserved a good deal of that abuse, but got rather more than their de-

  165
  serts. They were most undoubtedly a very gallant class of persons, and without their aid the loss of life and property upon our coasts would be far greater than at present. Still it would be better if they were put under greater control, and were not allowed to be quite so extortionate as they were at present. He believed that the faults with which they were charged, were mainly to be attributed to defects in the system under which they acted, and by an alteration of that system it might be possible to turn their good qualities to the best ac count, without prolonging a state of things which had given rise to the French saying, that one of the greatest calamities which could befal a man was to be totally wrecked, but that a still greater was to be saved by English boatmen. He was bound to say on the other side that the chances of being saved were very much greater on the English than on the French side of the water—a fact which had been frequently proved, and which ought not to be lost sight of in these discussions. He was sorry he could not speak equally favourably of the local Courts of the Cinque Ports, which were in many instances not constituted of persons who were conversant with nautical matters. It was said that no case need be brought before the existing Courts, unless both sides were agreed upon adopting such a course, and it appeared that both sides seldom did so agree, so that the Courts were practically useless. They were told that Lloyd's agents usually decided these cases by means of arbitration. But that was a still worse mode of proceeding; inasmuch as the arbitrators were most extravagant in their charges, and for this reason that they were paid according to the amount which they awarded. In one instance that had come to his knowledge, the arbitrator awarded £3,000 damages in a case which was afterwards settled for £30. It was essential to a shipowner in most cases that the question in dispute should be speedily settled; and this necessity, taken advantage of by the claimant, obliged him frequently to accept very unfavourable terms. Under these circumstances the promoters of this Bill were endeavouring by its means to transfer these cases to the County Courts, where they would be decided not only with reasonable despatch but also according to the ordinary principles of justice. Under the Bill, the appeal lay from the County Courts to the Admiralty Court, but possibly that provision might be modi-
  166
  fied after the Report of the Commission was published.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he objected to any temporary legislation upon this subject, and hoped that the Law Officers of the Crown would favour the House with the reasons which had induced them to advise the Government to assent to the second reading of the Bill. He could see no reason why the Bill should be passed before the Report of the Royal Commission was obtained. He therefore moved that the House should go into Committee that day six months. There was at present the option, in salvage cases where the property did not exceed £1,000, of applying to two magistrates or to the Comity Court; but he had been informed that at Liverpool the latter course had never been resorted to. Nor would the Bill lead to any more speedy despatch of business; for the County Courts were already overloaded with the Equity and Probate jurisdiction which had been conferred on them, and he believed the addition now proposed would lead to greater delay and vexation than attended proceedings in the London Court of Admiralty. He doubted, too, whether County Court Judges were competent to deal with such recondite questions. The Judges, who had generally been barristers in limited practice, were not likely to be versed in the mysterious and recondite questions that would be submitted to them. Lastly, the ports that would be chiefly affected by the Bill were all in the highest degree averse to the proposition.
  MR. FRESHFIELD,as a Member interested in the Cinque Ports, opposed the Bill. County Court Judges had already quite sufficient to do. It was clear that they could not be conversant with every department of law, and this was a matter in which they were likely to be especially ignorant. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Cave) seemed to be very ill informed as to the constitution of the Cinque Ports. There was in them an Admiralty Court as ancient as the High Court of Admiralty, and it was presided over by Sir Robert Phillimore. The Cinque Porte, moreover, had a peculiar local Court. The Lord Warden had power to select "substantial men," any three of whom could determine claims for salvage. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred these claims were very trivial, and were decided readily and promptly. A power of appeal to the Court of Admiralty existed, but was rarely exercised. A

  167
  local tribunal of this kind was surely much better than the County Court, which often sat at a distance, and not more frequently than once a month. On these grounds he seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Gorst,)
  —instead thereof.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he wished to point attention to the provisions of the Bill as at present printed. He could not but think that many hon. Gentlemen had not read the reprint of the Bill. The avowed object of the original Bill was to facilitate the trial of cases which, from the small amount at stake, it was inconvenient to carry to the Court of Admiralty. To remedy the failure of justice which consequently occured, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull proposed, in the first instance, to confer Admiralty jurisdiction, in all Admiralty cases where the claim did not exceed £500, on twenty-two County Courts named in the Bill, appointing a Judge to each of these with a salary of £2,000 a year. This would have involved an expense to the country of £44,000 a year, and the jurisdiction thus given would have been rather formidable. The grievance, he had thought, might be met by a much less cumbrous machinery than the original Bill contained. The object to be desired was to give a local and speedy trial in certain, not in all cases, by an Admiralty mode of procedure, not by means of Admiralty jurisdiction. He had therefore suggested to the author of the Bill certain alterations, which would in his opinion greatly improve it, and he hoped render it acceptable to the House. First of all he said there should not be twenty-two County Courts named in the Bill; but where it was thought necessary or desirable a jurisdiction should be given to a County Court, similar to, but not the same as Admiralty jurisdiction. That should be done by Order in Council, and without increasing the charge on the country. Jurisdiction would be given not in nil but only in some Admiralty causes. Wherever a cause of action mentioned in the Bill arose within the County Court district so appointed, the suit would be commenced, not by seizing the ship, but by a summons served on the captain of the
  168
  ship or on the owner if resident within the district. There should be a list of nautical assessors laid before the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and confirmed by him, so that, in cases of salvage and collision, the County Court Judge if he thought proper, or if required by either party, would be assisted by two nautical assessors. Originally the Bill gave Admiralty jurisdiction in all Admiralty cases above £500; but under the Bill it was no longer an Admiralty but a County Court jurisdiction. He had thought that jurisdiction in cases of the amount of £500 was inconsistent with the other cases of their ordinary jurisdiction which the County Court entertained, and the hon. Gentleman had consented to lower that amount to £300 in collision and salvage cases, and to less in others. Judging from his own experience where in collision and salvage cases the claim was for £300, the decision would not be for more than from £50 to £100. He had also inserted in the Bill a clause giving a power of appeal to the High Court of Admiralty where any difficulty arose. Under these circumstances he thought that the Bill was one which the House should pass; and he hoped it would not be supposed that the Government had acted in the matter, as the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stated, merely to satisfy the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Hull (Mr. Norwood), and other Members who supported the Bill.
  MR. NORWOODthought, with regard to the Cinque Ports, it would be objectionable to have two tribunals in the same district.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALpointed out that the retention of the Cinque Ports Court would be perfectly consistent with the principle of the Bill—namely, the establishment of local courts; and as the jurisdiction would only be a concurrent one—and there existed a strong feeling in favour of retaining it in the district—ho suggested that it might be desirable to continue it.
  MAJOR DICKSONwished, in correction of a mistake that had been made, to say that the Commissioners of the Cinque Ports were not mere tradesmen. They thoroughly understood the questions which came before them, and their decisions were well worthy of confidence. He should be glad to know when the Commission On this subject were expected to make their Report.
  MR. NORWOODconfessed that he was not disposed to wait for the Report of the Judicature Commission. He begged leave to remind his hon. Friend that there was a Report presented to that House not long ago, relating to transactions at Deal, which were not altogether of a satisfactory nature, and ns to the observations of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst), he must remind the House of the significant fact that the only petition against this Bill was from the Amalgamated Law Society. He would briefly state the reasons that had induced him, with his Friends, to introduce this Bill. The question of Admiralty jurisdiction by local Courts had been discussed for several years past, and it was a question which they, in the North of England especially, felt strongly upon. In the year 1865, a Bill, emanating from Newcastle, was introduced, which was withdrawn on the undertaking of the Board of Trade to deal with the question. The re presentatives of the seaports still continued to press the wants of their constituents upon the Government, and last year the Board of Trade introduced a Bill which contained provisions almost identical with those of his Bill. It gave, for instance, complete Admiralty jurisdiction to the County Courts, fixed upon limits precisely the same as his; and, in point of fact, the only difference between their Bill and his was this, that they proposed to give extended jurisdiction to the High Court of Admiralty, which was objected to pending the inquiry of the Judicature Commission. His Bill avoided all those points of dispute, and merely confined itself to giving to the local Court certain jurisdiction. Now, with regard to the selection of the County Courts, it would he impossible to find a tribunal better suited to the object in view. They were Courts that existed throughout the entire country, and to which there was every facility of access. With regard to the Courts of Record at Liverpool and Hull, the objection to them was this, that they sat only once in three months, and they could not, therefore, give that summary jurisdiction which a County Court would afford. He could not sufficiently impress on the Committee the importance of this point. Take the case of a foreign ship entering an English port—she might, under present circumstances, be detained, and the case tried in the Admiralty Court of England, whereas, if this Bill became law, the captain of that foreign ship would be able to have recourse to the local Court at an expense consider-
  170
  ably lessened. He need not go fully into the various questions and objections which had been raised. They had, he thought, been fully and completely answered by the Solicitor General and the Vice President of the Board of Trade. As a large shipowner, and connected with the mercantile interest of the country, he could only say that he had listened with respect to the opinions of the hon. Member below him, and the hon. Gentleman opposite; but it appeared to him that the legal interest ought not to have more than its due weight in a matter of this kind. They came to the House and asked for what they believed to be a great boon, and without taking up the time of hon. Members any further, he could only say that he hoped the House would consent to go into Committee on the measure.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, that the Bill in its present form was not acceptable to the commercial community of Liverpool; but, after the explanation of the Solicitor General, he would not object to considering it in Committee, with the hope that the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Graves), conferring the requisite jurisdiction on the Passage Court of Liverpool, might be agreed to.
  MR. GHILDERSthought that he was quite safe in saying that the Judicature Commission would not report in time to influence the legislation of the present Session. Indeed, if they reported during the winter, it was hardly probable that the Government would be able to pass any measure founded upon its Report next year. While he did not agree with many of the provisions of this Bill, yet on the question of delaying it till the Commission reported, he was not in a position to oppose it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not know when the Judicature Commission would make its Report. This Bill might be entirely upset by subsequent legislation, or it might be in harmony with the Report of the Commission. He thought a strong case had been made out for providing a remedy for existing evils, and it seemed right that the Bill should be considered in Commitee.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause I to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Repeal of Acts and Parts of Acts).
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN moved the addition of words to the effect that nothing in. the Act should affect the power of any Court appointed under the provisions of any Act of Parliament, and under the jurisdiction of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. The Vice President of the Board of Trade was in error as to the constitution of the Cinque Ports Courts, such Courts being composed of naval captains and persons well acquainted with the subjects coming before them, and in the case of the settlement of a claim referred to it was an agent of Lloyd's, and not the Court of the Lord Warden, who acted on the occasion.
  MR. NORWOODassented to this suggestion, and the Amendment was withdrawn in order that the Cinque Ports Admiralty jurisdiction might be retained by an alteration in the Schedule of the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. GRAVES MR. GRAVES moved the following new clause (Port of Liverpool and the Court of Passage):—
  "The port of Liverpool and the district within the jurisdiction of the Court of Passage of the borough of Liverpool shall not be included in any County Court district for the purposes of this Act, but the said Court of Passage, upon such an Order in Council being made as Her Majesty is by this Act authorized to make with respect to County Courts, shall have the like jurisdiction, powers, and authorities as are by this Act conferred on County Courts, and as if that Court were a County Court; but nothing herein shall be deemed to enlarge the area over which the jurisdiction of the Court of Passage extends, or to alter the rules and regulations for holding the said Court, or to take away or restrict any jurisdiction, power, or authority already vested in that Court; and fees received in that Court under this Act shall be dealt with as fees received in that Court under its ordinary jurisdiction."
  MR. NORWOODsaid, the Court of Passage sat quarterly only, and that would lead to a most unsatisfactory state of things.
  Clause amended and agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

MILITARY AT ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 95.]
(Mr. Serjeant Barry, Mr. Gavin, Mr. Esmonde.)
MILITARY AT ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 95.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SERJEANT BARRYsaid, he proposed that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed.
  MR. VANCEcomplained of the Bill being continually put on the Paper and then adjourned. It was inconvenient to Members to have to attend and then find that the Bill was put off.
  MR. SERJEANT BARRYsaid, that being the case, he would move the second reading of the Bill. His object in postponing it was to suit the convenience of Members. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the law of England and Scotland to Ireland with reference to the presence of the military at Parliamentary elections. The military were not only allowed to be present at elections in Ireland, but were employed to escort voters to the poll, thereby causing great dissatisfaction, and interfering with the freedom of election. The practice not only caused dissatisfaction amongst the people of Ireland, but was objectionable to the military engaged in the service. The English Act, passed in 1741, provided that the military should be removed two miles from the place of election; and, if the Secretary of War neglected to carry out the law, he was to be deprived of his office. There must have been an exception made in favour of the Household troops; because it appeared that the presence of the Guards at an election of Westminster caused the House to pass a Resolution declaring that it was a violation of the law. In 1847 another Act was passed, directing that, instead of removing the military two miles from the place of election, they should be confined to their barracks during the election, and that was the Act which he proposed by this Bill to extend to Ireland. In England, the military might be called on in case of necessity; but it must be shown that the necessity was so strong as to supersede the law. If they searched the records of English elections, they would find a degree of disorder utterly unknown at elections in Ireland; and therefore it could not be urged that, though the law might be fit for England, it was not for Ireland, in consequence of the greater prevalence of rioting at Irish elections. Even if there were a peculiar tendency to riot at elections, it was caused

  173
  by peculiar and exceptional legislation, which provided that, if in any other place than the polling-place rioting takes place, the troops could be employed to protect the voters ostensibly, but in reality to bring the voters to vote against their own convictions. The tenant-farmers of Ireland were perfectly well able to go to the polling-place, and protect themselves in recording their votes; but, unfortunately, in Ireland the tenant-farmers could not vote according to their convictions, but must vote in obedience to the orders of their landlords. The general process was to collect the voters in a mass like a herd of cattle, and, having been put in the centre of a large military escort, they were marched off to the poll; the military being nominally their protectors, but in reality their custodians. Any attack made upon such a cavalcade—which in England or Scotland would create the utmost indignation—was not for the purpose of molesting the voters, but for rescuing them from their most unconstitutional imprisonment. Therefore the employment of the military at elections was most objectionable. If hon. Members were in earnest about protecting voters in the free exercise of the franchise, let them protect them by the ballot. He would only refer, out of many cases, to that of the last Waterford Election, in which two lives were lost under circumstances which he, as a lawyer, averred were perfectly unjustifiable, and which had produced an amount of ill feeling and irritation not alone in the locality, but throughout Ireland, which it would take some time to subside. It was clear that, at Dungarvan, two persons, unoffending spectators of an election disturbance, were deliberately killed by a trooper of the 12th Lancers. The coroner's inquest found a verdict of wilful murder, which would have been respected in England, but was not in Ireland, on the occasion to which he referred. It was true that there were technical difficulties in the wav of detecting the trooper who was actually guilty of the crime. He thought that a great indiscretion was committed when, in the triumphal cortège which escorted the Prince of Wales and his bride on their entrance to Dublin, the place of honour was accorded to the 12th Lancers, whose presence called from the people execrations, both loud and deep, and cries of "Duugarvan butchers"—the name by which they are now called in Ireland. He hoped this Bill would be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Serjeant Barry.)
  THE EARL OF MAYOregretted that, without Notice, the hon. Member had arraigned the conduct of the stipendiary magistrate at Dungarvan, and at a time when no reply could be given had made charges which might have been made a year and a half ago. The case might have been brought before the ordinary legal tribunals by the hon. Member or any of his friends. They had not done so; and therefore the House might assume that it was not proper to rake up the occurrence now. From his own personal knowledge, he could state that, though some hisses were heard when the 12th Lancers passed in the late procession, there was no foundation for the statement that execrations were heaped upon the men of that gallant regiment during the recent visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Dublin. With regard to the taste of the hon. Member in mentioning this circumstance as he had done, he would say nothing. It is deeply to be regretted that necessity so often compels the Executive to call out the military in aid of the civil power, at the time of elections in Ireland. All Governments had been compelled to take this course; and, so long as the present tendency to riot existed, troops would be required, the use of which it was quite a mistake to suppose was unconstitutional. Soldiers are not called out except on the advice of the magistrates for the preservation of the peace; and he would like to see the Government that could venture to refuse to listen to such advice. He objected to any interference with the Government in Ireland in reference to the employment of military on these occasions. No candid man could believe that, unless this protection were afforded, loss of life would take place. The hon. Gentleman, in trying to persuade the House that any influence was brought to bear on the voters in this way, was acting entirely at variance with facts. The only way to get rid of the presence of military at elections was for the people of Ireland to discontinue their tendency to riot. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months,"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BAGWELL MR. BAGWELL moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Bagwell.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 57: Majority 20.
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. VANCEthought that the subject had been sufficiently discussed.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthen moved that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
  MR. MONSELLappealed to the noble Earl the Secretary for Ireland to allow the debate to be adjourned, as it was at the instance of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) that the question had been forced on at that late hour.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that if hon. Members were determined to persist in this course it would be useless to enter into a contest. If the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House, he would consent to the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate arising; Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  BRISTOL ELECTION.
  Petition of Electors of the City of Bristol, complaining of that Election [App. 1]; referred to the General Committee of Elections, and Mr. SPEAKER to issue his Warrants for persons, papers, and records.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Endowed Schools * (98).
Second Reading—United Parishes (Scotland)* (84).
Committee—Industrial Schools (Ireland)* (69).
Report—Industrial Schools (Ireland)* (69).
Third Reading—Broughty Ferry Provisional Order Confirmation * (86), and passed,

NATIONAL GALLERY.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEasked, What steps the Government propose to take with respect to the Preparation of Designs and Plans for the New National Gallery? It was now more than a year since the Committee of Judges appointed to consider the subject had made their Report. In that
94
Report they stated that, although the plans submitted possessed considerable merit and ability, they could not recommend any one individual design for adoption and execution. At the same time they pointed to the design of Mr. Barry for a new building, and of Mr. Murray for an adaptation of the existing one as possessing the greatest amount of architectural merit. That Report, moreover, was referred by the Government to the Trustees of the National Gallery, and they in their comments upon the same laid down certain principles to be observed in the construction. In another place the First Commissioner of Works stated that, as the land would not be in the possession of the Government for a year, no immediate hurry was required—that time had not elapsed. When it was borne in mind how long the question of a site for the National Gallery had been determined upon, no time ought, in his opinion, to be lost in the preparation of the plans and designs. He wished also to know, what it was proposed to do with regard to the barracks? He did not know, in reference to the question of site, whether the Board of Works and the military authorities were at issue in this matter, but it was, he thought, high time that the Government should make up their minds to retain or remove the barracks, as well as to arrive at a decision about the plans and designs for the Gallery itself.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the matter was very much in the state that the noble Viscount had described. On receiving the Report of the Committee of Judges—of which the noble Viscount was himself the Chairman, if he recollected rightly—the Government communicated with the Trustees of the National Gallery, and from the Trustees, who also furnished a Report, the Government received a succinct set of suggestions, giving a complete account of the space required, and making also some very valuable suggestions. The Government was now waiting in consequence of that Report. His noble Friend the First Commissioner of "Works had not yet decided who the architect of the new building should be. The plans were ready to be submitted to the architect as soon as he was selected; but a difficulty had arisen in this respect, which had not yet been surmounted, in consequence of the Report of the Judges that none of the plans suggested were such as ought to be adopted. As his noble Friend had not

95
given him any notice of the latter part of his Question with regard to the barracks, he could not answer him at that moment, but he would make inquiry and give the information required on another evening.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he sincerely regretted that the project for removing the National Gallery to Burlington House had been rejected. The subject was one of very great importance, owing to the value of the national collection and the growing interest and feeling of pride which the people took in it. The present building was most unsatisfactory from its want of sufficient space, and the pictures were seriously injured by the atmosphere on account of the deficiency of proper ventilation. Year by year the Trustees were obliged to put those pictures through the process of cleaning, and that process was by degrees obliterating the delicacy and the tone of their colouring. He regretted that the reply of the noble Earl was so unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it held out very little hope to the great majority of their Lordships of ever seeing the new National Gallery.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that when the Royal Academy was removed there would be a large amount of additional space available for the exhibition of the national pictures. It would not, he thought, be judicious to select any plans, however excellent, until they had secured a really competent architect to whom they might confide the construction of the building.

VAGRANTS—THE GUILDFORD UNION.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON THE EARL OF CARNARVON moved for Copy of Correspondence which has recently passed between the Poor Law Board and the Guildford Board of Guardians in reference to the Relief of Vagrants. It was not his intention to raise a discussion on the general question of casual relief—he only desired to call attention to a particular case in a particular union, which appeared to him to involve such a principle of injustice that he hoped his reference to it in that House would have the effect of preventing its occurrence elsewhere. He understood that the Poor Law Guardians of the Guildford Union had appointed as their relieving officer for the casual poor a police-constable. To such an act of the Board he did not think there could be any substantial objection; but he
  96
  had been further informed that this relieving officer in carrying out his duties had proceeded upon the principle of inquiring into each particular case before granting relief, and when he considered that the applicant was what was called a professional tramp, he refused relief. Now although he was supported by the Board of Guardians in the course he had taken, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) wished to point out that the views of this officer in this respect were absolutely and wholly wrong. Vagrancy, as their Lordships knew, was treated by the law as an offence, and was punishable as such. But to inflict punishment upon a vagrant by absolute starvation—by refusing all relief—whether the applicant was a professional tramp or not, was wholly contrary to the law. The duty of the guardians was simply to administer relief to those who were really in want of it, and the relieving officer was bound to afford board and lodging for the night to any casual applicant, provided he had no bonâ fide reason for supposing that such person was merely simulating destitution for the purpose of obtaining relief under false pretences. When the circumstances of this case at Guildford were brought to the knowledge of his noble Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board (the Earl of Devon) he immediately sent down instructions to the Poor Law Guardians in respect to the treatment of the casual poor, which instructions the guardians were to communicate to their relieving officer for his guidance; but the guardians by a majority of votes decided against obeying these instructions. Things therefore went on as before. When the Poor Law Board was again applied to it again sent down similar instructions for the guidance of the relieving officer; but with the same result as before, as the guardians a second time decided by a majority against communicating them to their official. A third time was the case brought before his noble Friend, and a third time did he issue instructions to the Board of Guardians; but on this occasion his noble Friend did not communicate his instructions by letter, but by an Inspector, whom he sent down to Guildford, and who pointed out to the guardians that they had been acting illegally in regard to the treatment given by their relieving officer to the casual poor; but once more the guardians refused to communicate the instructions to the relieving officer, on the ground that he must have been already aware through the newspapers of

  97
  the views of the Poor Law Board on the subject. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) would not comment on these facts, but he would ask his noble Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, how far it was possible for Boards of Guardians to set at defiance the central authority; and, whether he was not possessed of certain powers by which he could reduce a recalcitrant board to obedience? If the noble Earl did not possess such a power he ought to ask Parliament to give it to him, and doubtless it would be cheerfully accorded. In speaking of the Guildford Board of Guardians, he ought to have mentioned that a small minority of them, headed by the rector of one of the neighbouring parishes, had struggled hard, but in vain, against the vis inertœ of the majority; and it was owing to that minority that this matter had not been allowed to go to sleep.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House, Copy of Correspondence which has recently passed between the Poor Law Board and the Guildford Board of Guardians in reference to the Relief of Vagrants."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, he had no objection to produce the Papers which were the subject of his noble Friend's Motion; but he thought it would be convenient to modify the terms of his noble Friend's Motion, so as to include the whole of the Correspondence which had taken place upon the subject. He should imitate the example of the noble Earl, in not, on this occasion, going into the large and vexed question of the treatment of vagrants in this country, which was one of the most difficult subjects with which the Poor Law Board had to deal. The statement of the noble Earl with regard to the facts of the case in question was substantially correct, with the exception that the police constable was appointed to the office, not of relieving officer, but of assistant relieving officer, his duties being strictly confined to administering relief to the casual poor. The course pursued by that officer was clearly contrary to law. The officer exercised the discretion which it was perfectly right he should do, taking care that relief was not given to those who ought not to receive it; but, on the other hand, he had taken on himself to refuse relief where it ought to have been given, and where—as subsequently appeared—there were no visible means of subsistence, and where the parties refused had gone into the town to commit offences in order that
  98
  they might be sent to gaol. The Poor Law Board had communicated with the Board of Guardians, on two occasions, by letter, and a third time by sending down an Inspector, and had informed them that: whatever the character of the persons who: might present themselves as claimants for: relief, although belonging to the class of I vagrants, the law required that the necessary relief should be given to them if: destitute, and they requested the Board of Guardians to communicate that opinion to the official acting under them whose conduct was immediately concerned. On the last occasion, when the Inspector attended the meeting of the Guardians, he, in a long interview, impressed on them the real state of the law, and urged them to communicate instructions to that effect to the officer. In the course of the discussion on that occasion, the Chairman stated that the officer was already in possession of those instructions; and in consequence of that statement—in which, from the position of the person making it, they could not but place reliance—the Poor Law Board had not taken any further steps. His noble Friend, asked what power the Poor Law Board had with reference to a recalcitrant Board of Guardians in such a case? They had no power to act upon the Board of Guardians; but they had power to send their instructions direct to the assistant relieving officer, and to dismiss him in case he neglected or refused; to obey. He hoped their Lordships would give their attention to the Papers which would be laid before them, where they would see exactly the course pursued by the Poor Law Board; and if the Board found it necessary to interfere further, they would not shrink from doing so.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that no doubt the question of vagrancy would before long force itself on their Lordships' serious attention, when it would be absolutely necessary to enter into a most searching and comprehensive examination of the whole Poor Law system of the country. It was a most formidable principle that every person should be entitled to maintenance at the public expense without reference to character, conduct, or circumstances; and to render it safe they could only deal with the destitute. If relief reached any class above destitution, it necessarily involved injustice to every other class. The system rested on three guarantees—the labour test, the work house, and the small area of rating, as

  99
  involving vigilant caution, knowledge, and attention to business. But the system had gradually departed from every one of these guarantees, and the consequence was that out-door relief had largely increased and the rates were rapidly increasing. Abuses had been gradually creeping into the whole system, and the time was not distant when he believed it would be necessary for the safety of the country to consider the whole question, which was much more formidable now than when the new Poor Law Act was first passed. He had been intimately acquainted with the late Mr. Senior, who was the real author and framer of that measure. He was in constant communication with him while he was pursuing his inquiries as a Poor Law Commissioner, and he well remembered, when congratulating him on the passing of the Bill, and saying that the country was now permanently safe in consequence, that gentleman told him not to be over certain—they had a lease for thirty or forty years, but before that period expired they would have the whole thing to do over again. He hoped their Lordships would give this question their most serious attention.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the question of vagrancy was a very important one, and he thought that the number of professional vagrants, which was gradually increasing, required a serious check. He concurred with the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Overstone) in thinking that very great abuses had crept, and were creeping into the administration of the Poor Law, and as to the great evils that were likely to ensue; but he was sorry to say that the disposition of the present day was to prevent a check being put to these evils, and rather to aggravate them. The real truth to be borne in mind was, that the purpose of the Poor Law was not that the funds raised under it, in many instances from very poor persons, should be administered as charitable gifts, but for the relief of destitution. He believed, after all, that the principle adopted by the Guildford Board of Guardians in regard to vagrants was a right one—namely, to discourage the system of professional tramps, who were not travelling about in quest of honest employment, but were mere idle vagrants who shunned work. The only way of dealing properly with that class was through a police officer; but that was not strictly the law. It would require
  100
  some alteration before that could well be done. Relief should be given even in cases of vagrancy where there was believed to be destitution; but the parties should be brought before the magistrates next morning and committed for vagrancy. He had been Chairman of a Board of Guardians since the institution of the new Poor Law, and therefore he had had a good deal of experience in the matter, and he believed it to be impossible in many instances to grant relief to vagrants in workhouses in all cases, because in some unions there was only one workhouse for several parishes upon different lines of road. The result was that in the towns where there was no workhouse the paupers went to the overseer or to the relieving officer, if he resided in the place. Now, it appeared to him that neither of those persons was competent to deal with cases of vagrancy. They did not like to expose the windows of their residences to be broken by the violence of those persons, in the event of refusal to relieve them. He (Lord Redesdale) thought that the best course to pursue would be not to admit vagrants into the workhouses except in cases of sickness, when they must be maintained until their recovery. There were some persons who had peculiar views in reference to Poor Law relief; and, probably, some of those who raised objections took the view that the amount raised by rates should be administered as charity, and that there should be a general relief of all who came and asked for it. If such a system were introduced into this country it would lead to evils of a most dangerous character; and he certainly hoped that some law would be passed which would be founded upon this principle, that while the honest vagrant should receive relief the inveterate professional vagrant should as such suffer by the law. He thought it would be better to have separate houses for vagrants, administered under the discretion of a police officer appointed by the Board of Guardians. When Boards of Guardians were accused of obstinacy, he must say that, for the most part, the majority of a Board were better judges than the minority as to the manner in which relief was administered.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that he had no objection to the alteration proposed by the noble Earl the President of the Poor Law Board; but he hoped that the Correspondence which was to be laid before them would bring out the exact

  101
  facts of the case. He had been informed that the Board of Guardians had three times distinctly negatived the proposal to communicate the instructions of the Poor Law Board to the relieving officer. He should entirely agree with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, that public money was given with a view to relief and not with a view to charity, if the proposition were applied to the able-bodied poor only. He also agreed that relief should not be given except in cases of absolute destitution. But if the rule were applied by his noble Friend to the case of the sick and infirm, who were qualified for admission to an infirmary rather than a workhouse, then he must altogether dissent from the doctrine. With this qualification he was prepared to accept a great deal of what had been said by his noble Friend. Great difficulty arose from the area of taxation for Poor Law purposes being too narrow; and if this area took in more than the class of property that the rates now alone pressed on, much of the difficulty would disappear. Every one who attended a Board of Guardians in a poor district must be aware that it very often happened that a large proportion of those who contributed to the poor rates were very little above the position of those who received relief, and he had himself very often felt the injustice of pressing men who could hardly keep themselves to increase the rates.
  EARL FORTESCUEprotested against the doctrine that it would be prudent to extend the area of taxation; for he could conceive nothing more dangerous than enlarging the area of taxation beyond the area of administration. Nothing could be more enticing than to have the power of relieving the poor by spending other people's money; but he looked with great alarm upon a national poor rate with a local area of administration. Possibly, however, all that his noble Friend meant was to refer to the propriety of bringing under the incidence of rating, property which was now unfairly exempted from rating; but not to interfere with the principle of having the area of taxation and the area of administration conterminous. This principle involved a careful and scrupulous administration of relief out of the rates. The money spent in rates was part of the wages fund of the country, and that amount could not be raised by rating for relief of the poor without tending to diminish wages by diminishing the demand
  102
  for labour, inasmuch as labour could only be paid for out of the fund at the disposal of the employers for wages. If the owners of land should raise a cry for aid to support the poor from anything like national rating or a national taxation he believed that they would have an almost unlimited amount of confusion and waste. This would give rise to the mischief, not merely of spending money, but that also of deteriorating raid degrading the character of the people by the spread of pauperism with all its evils, moral as well as physical.
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKEsaid, that there could be no doubt that the evil of vagrancy was increasing to a very serious extent, and deserved the serious attention of the Legislature. He agreed with those who thought it was encouraged in some places by well-meaning but inefficient members of Boards of Guardians. He was quite of opinion that the time had come for taking serious steps to diminish the mischief, and that result could only be attained by the adoption of more coercive measures—by inquiring into the character of vagrants, and informing those who were not really destitute that if they applied again they would be punished.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONexplained that, in saying it might be desirable to enlarge the area of taxation in reference to the Poor Law, he did not mean in a geographical and territorial sense, but that there was a particular kind of property on which taxation rested at the present moment with undue severity and injustice. He very much objected to the whole Poor Law relief falling almost entirely on real property—to three-fourths of the population benefiting by an expenditure which had to be borne by the other fourth. That was what he meant in the observations to which objection had been taken.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) stated that he went along with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees as far as the able-bodied poor were concerned, but that he could not agree with him as regarded the aged and the sick poor. For: his own part he (the Earl of Kimberley) thought the noble Earl was wrong in the reservations he had made on that point. As a matter of humanity it was right to make a distinction between the manner of treating the sick and the aged poor, and the manner of treating the able-bodied poor; but, as regarded the principles on which relief should be given under the

  103
  Poor Law, he maintained those principles ought to be applied to all classes of the poor, without distinction. The treatment of all should be based on the idea of giving relief, and not of dispensing charity. In giving relief to aged and sick paupers they must have strict rules which would pre vent aged and sick persons from having comforts within the workhouse which those of the same class did not enjoy out of it, and from coming upon the rates when they might be supported by their own relations, if they were able to support them, or when they might be in a position to obtain the relief they required for themselves. That was no imaginary difficulty. The question often arose whether medical aid should or should not be given by the parish; it was then the duty of the guardians to scrutinize these cases, and if they thought the relatives of the sick person had the means of supplying relief, then they should refuse the assistance of the parish doctor. Undoubtedly, if the sick poor required parish relief, it ought to be afforded them in the most humane and efficient manner; and he hoped improvements would be made in the administration of the law in that respect, and that due vigilance would be exercised to secure that the attendance on the sick poor should be as good as it ought to be. Then, again, as to the aged poor, it was obvious that, if they gave relief indiscriminately to aged persons, they took away all inducement to lay by money as a provision for old age, and would teach them to look upon the whole wealth of the country as their insurance fund for the time of infirmity and old age. If that were not guarded against, they would fall hack into that system of universal pauper ism from which they only emerged by means of the new Poor Law. There was a great tendency among the industrial poor to slide into the position of paupers. This argument was used among them—"Why should we work hard to maintain our families, when we see parish assistance given to other men who are as able as we are to support their families?" He contended that one of the duties of Boards of Guardians was to see that the interest of the industrious and deserving poor was properly cared for. He meant that they should not be put in a position in which they could justly complain of the relief that was given. It was a mistake to suppose that the burden of the Poor Law fell only on the rich—it fell very heavily on the poor also. He had frequently met with
  104
  poor persons who remonstrated against the relief given to persons who, they said, were perfectly able to maintain themselves. The poorer ratepayers were as jealous as any class of the community about relief being granted where it was not really deserved. These were feelings which it was desirable to encourage, and he trusted that, in considering any alteration in the administration of the Poor Law, they would be carefully borne in mind. He wished, however, to be understood as being entirely in favour of such improvements in the administration of the system as would insure that the assistance which must be given should be given in the best and most effective manner possible, and as opposed to any economy wL.ch might produce hardship or insufficiency of relief. He believed that in many parts of the country there had been neglect in that matter. He thought there ought to be more supervision exercised on the part of the Poor Law Board, and that not merely on the plea of economy, but to introduce efficiency and to prevent those hardships in the administration of the law which, if not prevented, might be used as arguments hereafter for the subversion of the whole system. Thinking that our Poor Law ought to be maintained on its present principles, he hoped that he might be excused for making these few remarks.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that the Poor Law could not be carried out in the present day with the stringency which was originally contemplated; and no one who had attended to the subject could doubt that a very great change had within the last few years occurred in its administration. There could now, in the great majority of cases, be no just complaint that the workhouses were not suited to their purpose or were inadequately provided for the comfort of their inmates. To his own knowledge there were workhouses which had become not hospitals, but what the French called hospices, where the inmates obtained a great deal more comfort than people of the same class out of them. Special care should, he thought, be taken that too great an extension was not given to that change. Endeavours should be made to keep down vagrancy by giving what relief was absolutely necessary to vagrants, but nothing beyond that. Houses had been hired in some cases expressly for the purpose of receiving vagrants, and this was a better system than taking them into the workhouse. Union rating had

  105
  been substituted for parish rating—an alteration which called for the exercise of great vigilance, lest the resources of the union should be wasted by persons who were, perhaps, less interested in their economical application in consequence of the extension of the area of taxation. But the question of area was far too large a subject to be discussed on an incidental Motion like the present; and he thought their Lordships would all agree that a national system of rating would be at tended with great danger of abuse and of a national system of pauperism. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) had advocated the bringing of other species of property beside that now subject to it under assessment to poor rate; but that would involve a change in the whole system of the existing law, and would raise a very large question which ought not to be settled without the very gravest and fullest deliberation.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That there be laid before this House, Copy of Correspondence which has recently taken place with the Poor Law Board in reference to the Relief of Vagrants in the Guildford Union.—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)

THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE

  NOTICE
  LORD DENMAN,in pursuance of a Notice given for August 19, 1867, and repeated for this day, rose—
  "To call Attention to the Uncertainty which prevails as to the Adoption of any plan for the new Courts of Justice which can be in accordance with the intention of the Act Courts of Justice 'Concentration Site,' (28 & 29 Vict., c. 49, s. 19), and with the opinions expressed in this House on the third reading of that Bill on the 8th of May, 1865."
  The noble Lord, referring their Lordships to that debate in which a strong opinion was expressed that Parliament should know beforehand what would be the probable cost of clearing the site and of completing the proposed building, reminded the House that large Votes, amounting to £1,500,000, had been dedicated to that purpose. In one year £700,000 had been advanced for it, and £660,000 in another, leaving only £140,000 remaining for the completion of the buildings, and the purchase of the site and approaches; and he reminded the House that by abandoning the old Courts of "Westminster Hall and Guildhall, the country would be deprived of two of the best spaces for parties waiting to attend to causes that could possibly exist—
  106
  that the services of West End jurors for causes arising in Westminster would be lost where they would be most useful, and that consultation-rooms for counsel and waiting-rooms could easily be added to remedy present inconveniences at Westminster; while at Guildhall—so convenient from merchants, stockbrokers, brokers, and seafaring men being near to it—every facility existed for access to documents, to counting-houses, warehouses, and to ships in the river; and a different class of cases could more satisfactorily be tried than they could be near Carey Street. Some additional Courts—such as a Court of Probate, and two or three or more Equity Courts—might easily be built on the Carey Street site, as well as in a plain inexpensive style, all the offices still required for the Courts of Law and Equity. And the Court of Exchequer at Westminster, and the Rolls Court near Chancery Lane were mentioned as models in the instructions to the architects for their plans. In case a return to Westminster Hall and Guildhall were agreed to, it would not be needful to purchase extra space at an enormous cost, as would now be requisite should Parliament agree to the outlay. One bookseller alone had received £10,000 for going across from one side of a street to another; and, if he were required—as seemed probable—to move again, another £10,000 would be demanded by one individual. If, on the other hand, the whole space were sold, and a sufficient space retained for all that was really needed, a large sum would be saved, and model dwelling-houses might be built for those who had been deprived of their residences, and large rents received for them. Instead of a previous Estimate being laid before Parliament, as had at first been earned in this House, a certificate, relied upon to declare the truth. had been given that the expense of the new Law Courts and their site would not probably be more than £1,500,000; but nothing could be more vague, and it was certain that by the time they were finished, on the scale proposed, the expense would not be much less than the cost of the Abyssinian War.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not quite sure as to the information which the noble Lord desired to have, but if he understood him correctly he wished to know what was exactly the position of the contemplated buildings of the Courts of Justice. He believed he was right in saying that the difficulty which had for

  107
  the moment suspended the choice of a plan was this—A competition was invited, which was responded to by a certain number of architects—eight or nine—who sent in plans, which were publicly exhibited. Before they were sent in, a memorandum was drawn up of the terms on which the exhibition was to be held; and it was that referees should be appointed by the Treasury, who were to determine to which of the plans exhibited the award of superior execution ought to be given. The referees who were charged with this duty were unable to agree that any one of the plans exhibited in competition was the best; but they selected two, and made an award that they thought the interior plan of one of the competitors and the exterior plan of another were the best. That award having been made, some of the unsuccessful competitors objected to it as being beyond the power of the referees. They said—"We entered into competition each one against every other, but not into competition with the joint production of two others." In the memorandum of the terms of competition it was stated that any matter in dispute should be referred to the decision of the Attorney General. That had been done, and he believed the reference was still going on. Until it was concluded, it would not be in the power of the Commissioners for the erection of the Palace of Justice to take any steps in regard to the selection of any plan. He hoped that before long the reference would be terminated, and that the Commissioners would then be allowed to proceed with the erection of the building.

MONETARY CONFERENCE (PARIS).

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to request that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before this House, the Proceedings of the International Monetary Conference held in Paris, June 1867; and to call Attention to the Report adopted by the International Conference on Weights, Measures, and Coins, held in Paris, June 1867,"—
  said, that the account of the proceedings of the Monetary Congress held at Paris was exceedingly interesting. It clearly showed the loss of time caused by the existing system, and of that labour the loss of which was the loss of wealth to the commerce of the world. The matter was one of importance to every civilized nation, and perhaps to none more than to that which stood at the head of the commercial The Lord Chancellor
  108
  nations of the world. There were now several foreign nations, including the Danubian Principalities, the source of a great part of our corn importations, the Brazils, and several South American States, among whom the use of the metric system in its entirety was compulsory. When he reminded their Lordships that among a population of 146,000,000 of the most civilized nations of the world the use of the metric system was compulsory, and that our trade in imports and exports with these States amounted to no less than £180,000,000 annually, they would allow that a case had been made out for assimilating to this more perfect system our own most confused, inconvenient, and anomalous system of weights and measures. There were other States, containing a population of 70,000,000, whose systems of weights and measures had been more or less assimilated to the metric system. Over and above these, there were two great commercial nations—the United States of America and this country—in which the use of the metric system was permissive; but in our own case in the least satisfactory method. By the English law no weights or measures could be lawfully used which were unstamped; but there was no authority in any public Department to stamp these weights or measures according to the metric system, so as to enable them to be used without exposing the users to a penalty. The United States had in like manner made the use of metric weights and measures permissive; but they had gone a great deal further. Far from refusing to stamp these weights and measures, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized and invited to furnish each State of the Union with a series of weights and measures on the metric system, and the Director of the Post Office had provided the Post Office with postal balances for foreign, letters, graduated in metric grammes. The metric system was, in fact, viewed with constantly increasing favour in the United States. The metrical system was at present being used by various communities, numbering 150,000,000 persons, and the Report which had been come to by the International Congress had been assented to by representatives of twenty different Governments. Mr. Hoffman had declared that a consequence of the diversity in systems of weights and measures works on chymistry were sealed books to foreigners, although the language in which they were written was understood by the reader. Merchants were

  109
  unanimously agreed that the metric system would save them a great deal of time, and enable them to get their business conducted by fewer clerks than at present; and all persons engaged in educating the young were convinced that the saving of time which would result from the introducton of the metric system would permit them to enlarge the curriculum in sources of primary education. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Proceedings of the International Monetary Conference held in Paris, June 1867."—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD OVERSTONEbegged to remind their Lordships that the subject of international coinage had been referred to a special Commission composed of men distinguished for scientific and commercial experience; and he would recommend their Lordships to wait until their Report had been made; for if it should prove to have been arrived at with anything like an approach to unanimity it would be impossible for their Lordships to withhold their assent from its decision. At the same time he must observe that any measure would be of a most dangerous character that should tend to alter the standard of value in England. The noble Earl was the avowed representative of an association who were continually thrusting upon the people of this country a universal international system of weights and measures. It was very remarkable, however, that while they did this they did nothing to remedy a much more practical evil—the utter want of uniformity that there was in the weights and measures used in this country. That was a clear, plain, practical grievance, and one that had repeatedly been made the subject of remonstrance with Parliament. Yet while that was left unnoticed by the noble Earl and his friends, they insisted that the want of an international system of weights and measures was a grievance of an intolerable character. This reminded him of the story of an unfortunate person who, having received an injury, brought an action to obtain redress, and retained Mr. Erskine to conduct his case. At the end of the learned counsel's speech the suitor burst into tears. "What is the matter," asked his attorney; "surely you could not have had your case stated better?" "I know that," was the reply; "but, Heaven have mercy upon me! I never knew how injured I was till that man told me." Was the noble Earl prepared to state on the floor of their Lordships'
  110
  House that even the French Government, with all the powers of coercion at its command, had been able to force the metrical system upon the provincial markets? That was a plain question, to which he should be glad to have a distinct answer. The case of the United States was sometimes referred to; but Professor Kelland said that, while on a holiday tour in America, he noticed that the booksellers' list of New York gave the prices in cents, because the law positively said that must be done, but that the prices were not such sums as 20, 50, or 100 cents, but were indivisible sums, such as 77 or 3 cents. Mr. Kelland was a good deal puzzled at this phenomenon—a decimal currency, but non-decimal prices—till it was explained to him that those prices represented sums arranged on the old shilling system. The very highest authority, Sir John Herschel, had again and again asserted that the basis of our system of weights and measures was less liable to error and more universally adopted than the French system. For all abstract purposes the decimal system was most convenient for obvious reasons; but a great variety of considerations, eminently practical in their nature, entered into the question as to whether the system should be adopted for the purposes of daily life, and these, he submitted, could be best examined by the Commission to which the subject had been referred.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYexpressed his regret that the amusing and instructive speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Fortescue) had not been made at an earlier hour in the evening, when a larger number of Peers could have been, present to have listened to him, There could be no difficulty in giving the noble Earl the Papers he asked for—in fact, all but one had already been laid before the House. Should the noble Earl enter into this question with the view of initiating legislation with regard to it, he hoped that he would commence by endeavouring to render uniform the weights and measures of this country, leaving the International Law upon the subject to be dealt with at some future period. The lower classes invariably regarded changes of the character advocated by the noble Earl with suspicion, and it was, therefore, almost impossible to induce them to adopt them. The task that the noble Earl had set himself was so involved in difficulty that the Government were not likely to take it off his hands.
  Motion agreed to

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for annexing Conditions to the Appointment of Persons to Offices in certain Schools—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 98.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.