Sitting of 4 July 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Pensions Commutation Acts Amendment* [230]; Local Loans (Ireland)* [231]; Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees* [232].
Second Reading—Bishopric of Truro [185], debate adjourned; Trade Marks Registration Amendment* [217].
Committee—Appellate Jurisdiction [111], debate adjourned; Medical Act (Qualifications) [170]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans [202–228]; Parliamentary and Municipal Registration (Boroughs)* [108–229].
The House met at Two of the clock.

VACCINATION ACT—BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES FORSTERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of W. Sampson Benton, against whom proceedings have been authorised by the Guardians of the Walsall Union, after six previous prosecutions for non-compliance with the Vaccination Act; and, whether he considers such repeated prosecutions to be in accordance with the instructions contained in the letter addressed by the Board to the Guardians of the Evesham Union on the 17th of September lasts?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, his attention had not been officially called to the case referred to by the hon. Member; but his attention had been recently drawn to cases of a similar character where repeated prosecutions had been instituted by the Guardians for non-compliance with the Vaccination Act. On a former occasion, he had placed on the Table a Letter which he caused to be sent to the Guardians of the Evesham Union last year, and which laid down the policy of the Local Government Board on this subject. It was difficult for him to say, as he had not the exact facts before him, whether the conduct of the Guardians of the Walsall Union was in accordance with the directions of the Board; but under the Act of Parliament it was absolutely necessary that the final discretion in these matters should be left to the Guardians, and it would not be proper for a Government Department to
946
issue authoritative directions as to what the procedure should be. It did seem to him to be unfortunate that repeated prosecutions occurred in so many cases, and the Local Government Board had suggested to the Guardians that after having procured two convictions under the Act, they should consider whether under the circumstances of the case they were likely by repeated prosecutions to ensure the vaccination of the child. If that was likely to be the result, no doubt further proceedings should be taken, but whether the Guardians were justified in the present case depended on the circumstances.

UNITED STATES—EXTRADITION—CASE OF CALDWELL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which passed between the English Government and the Government of Canada on the subject of the extradition of Caldwell in the years 1870–71, who was indicted in the United States for an offence different from that in respect of which he was surrendered; and, when the recent Despatches and Correspondence with reference to the extradition of Winslow will be laid on the Table?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that the Question having only appeared on the Paper that morning he had not had the opportunity of consulting the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon it; but no doubt any Correspondence which had taken place between our Government and the Government of Canada on the subject would be laid on the Table. He believed that the Papers relating to Winslow's case had either been laid on the Table, or would be in the course of that day or to-morrow.

TURKEY—THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE PAPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can name a time within which he believes he shall be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers he has promised to produce in reference to the Eastern Question?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there are no Members of the House who are more anxious that these Papers should be placed on the Table than the Members of Her Majesty's Government. I gave orders before I came to the House yesterday that the utmost promptitude should be exercised in preparing them; but it is quite out of my power to say exactly on what day they will be placed on the Table.

THE ENGLISH CHANNEL—THE STRAITS TUNNEL.—QUESTIONS.
MR. WHALLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the project for a tunnel between the shores of England and France, Whether the Government have given any sanction or encouragement to such project?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: What has passed between this country and Prance relating to the Straits Tunnel has been fully laid before Parliament. Before anything could take practical shape there would have to be a Treaty, which is a matter not in my Department, but the House would certainly be fully informed.
In further reply to Mr. WHALLEY,
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, full opportunity would be given for discussing the question before any steps were taken to sanction the scheme.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1875–1876—SURVEYORS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'LEARYasked the President of the Board of Trade, What standard of fitness (if any) has been adopted to guide in the selection of persons to act as Surveyors of unseaworthy ships under the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1875 and 1876?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: If the hon. Member means the officers appointed under the Act of 1875—there is no Act yet of 1876—to superintend survey districts and to act without first referring to the Board of Trade, the duties of these officers are stated in the instructions laid before Parliament, and are chiefly of superintendence and authority, but also of practical survey when necessary. The standard of fitness is a man's proved capacity to fulfil these duties. There were 10 appointed, and about 1,000 applicants, therefore 990
948
disappointed, who, of course, think the 10 were unfit. If the hon. Gentleman considers any unfit men were appointed, or that any of the 990 were more fit than those selected, he had better say so openly, and not by covert insinuation. The standard of fitness for the surveyors in each of these superintending officers' districts, appointed under former Acts, is proof of having served well in engineering factories, dockyards, and building yards, and of possessing the requisite practical knowledge and experience, having a character for tact and judgment, and being generally well fitted to deal with technical persons in their own branches. A surveyor is chosen provisionally, put through a course of practical examination, and taken on trial for the first year.

THE NEW LAW COURTS—THE ARCHITECT'S COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. MELLORasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he will state the nature and the terms of the agreement made with the architect when engaged to prepare the original design and the working plans for the erection of the New Law Courts; and, whether any and what provision was made to remunerate the architect in the event of an alteration in the plans whereby the estimated cost of the buildings would be increased?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: The agreement between Mr. Street, the architect of the New Law Courts, and the Office of Works was made on September 23, 1870. The architect was to receive 5 per cent on the amount proposed to be spent; one-third was to be paid on the execution of the contract, another third as soon as one-half of the contract sum was paid to the builders, and the remaining third when the final payment had been made to the builder. With regard to the second part of the Question, it was arranged that if any alterations or additions were made to the work, entailing an increase in the cost of the whole work, the architect should receive at the rate of 5 per cent upon that increase.

PAPAL AUTHORITY IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to

  949
  the statement of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, that the Pope and not the Queen exercised paramount authority in certain cases affecting civil liberty in Ireland, Whether he is prepared to take action by further inquiry or otherwise in respect of such declaration now that the litigation in reference to which it was made, and which prevented his replying to a previous question to the same effect, has come to an end?
  MR. DISRAELI: If I do not give a very satisfactory or clear answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman it is not certainly from any want of opportunity of knowing it, for I believe it has been on the Paper six or seven times; and I have always come down to the House in order to meet the hon. Member. I confess myself that I do not attach to it a very definite idea. In the first place, there seems to be a Judge in Ireland who has made a statement. Whether it is right or wrong, I do not think it my duty to be responsible for statements made by Judges in Ireland, and I cannot consent to take a course which is very imperfectly expressed by the hon. Gentleman, in consequence of inquiry and investigation, which is to be the result of the statement made by the Judge. That I protest against. So far as I can collect from some of the observations and allusions of the hon. Gentleman, I suppose it refers to a question whether a person is liable to the Papal authority in this country if he voluntarily accepts that authority. It is a voluntary act, and if a person has that confidence in His Holiness the Pope, that he is determined to obey him, I do not see how the Government can stop it and prevent a voluntary act of submission. Those are my views: they may not agree with those of the hon. Gentleman; but I cannot help, as I hope he will see, those individuals in the position in which they have placed themselves. With respect to the opinion of the Judge it seems to be very imperfectly placed before me; but I must say that if it were given completely I should not hold myself individually responsible in the position which I occupy for any observations made by Judges in Ireland.
  MR. WHALLEYexplained that he attended the House whenever the Question was on the Paper, with the exception of one occasion, when he had postponed it to suit the convenience of the
  950
  right hon. Gentleman. He should regret to bring the right hon. Gentleman down and not be there to put the Question.

TURKEY—THE SERVIAN INVASION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information as to the number of troops of the Servian Army who have crossed the frontier into the Turkish provinces; and, whether it is true that any portion of those troops are under the command of a Russian officer of high rank?
  MR. BOURKE: No information has reached the Foreign Office as to the number of troops who have crossed the Servian frontier; nor has any information reached the Foreign Office of the fact that those troops are being commanded by a Russian officer.

POOR LAW—CASE OF CHARLOTTE HAMMOND.—QUESTION.
MR. PELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will lay on the Table of the House a copy of the report made, after inquiry, by Mr. Hedley, one of Her Majesty's Poor Law Inspectors, into the case of Charlotte Hammond, deceased, described in a leading article of the "Times" newspaper of May 26th, 1876, as "manslaughter by starvation," in connection with the administration of the Poor Laws by the Guardians of St. George's, Hanover Square?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that he had not yet had an opportunity of reading the Report in detail, and, therefore, he should be sorry to say absolutely that he would lay it on the Table. He was, however, generally acquainted with its purport, and he anticipated that there would be no objection to lay it on the Table. The case was rather of a sensational character, and he should feel it his duty to give the House every information on the subject.

EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND)—THE STAFF.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that important changes are about

951
to be made in the office staff of the Irish Education Board; if one of the secretaries is to be abolished; and, if so, which one; if the office of accountant is to be abolished; and, if so, how are its duties to be henceforth provided for; and, whether a communication from the Treasury in reference to these or other changes was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on or about the 15th of April last; and, if so, whether there is any objection to laying a Copy of that communication on the Table of the House?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, that owing to circumstances which indicated the existence of grave defects in the management of the details of financial administration under the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, the Treasury had, in the Spring of this year, suggested certain alterations in the office Staff of the Commissioners. Those suggestions had been forwarded to the Board of Education for their consideration. As they were still under the consideration of the Board it was not desirable for any correspondence to be produced at present, or for any further statement to be made concerning them; but he might mention that they did not include the abolition of the office of one of the secretaries.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 202.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 202.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I will take this opportunity of making the Financial Statement with respect to local income and indebtedness which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that I would make on the second reading of the Bill. Before I do so I will state that the object of this Bill is to authorize the Treasury to place funds at the command of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to enable them to meet the demands made upon them by the local authorities during the current financial year. The Act of last Session was to provide that the local
  952
  authorities should give notice before the 31st of December, 1875, of the sums they would probably require from January 1, 1876, to March 31, 1877; and a Parliamentary Paper has been circulated within the last few days stating that the total sum with respect to which notice was given amounted to a very large figure, more than double that which the present Bill seeks to place at the disposal of the Commissioners. Nevertheless, hon. Gentlemen will observe that the Estimate has been framed by the Treasury after six months' experience of the total period to which the applications related. The Treasury know how much was required or how little between January 1 and March 31 in the last financial year, and we have now passed through the first quarter of the current financial year, and have therefore the best reason for knowing that £4,000,000, which the Bill proposes to place at the disposal of the Commissioners, will be amply sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. On this first occasion, when the local authorities were asked to send in their estimates, perfect accuracy could hardly be expected. What I propose now to do is to make a short statement, showing the indebtedness of the local authorities and their current expenditure. As regards local indebtedness, I do not propose going further back than the year 1872–3. Previous to that time certain local authorities were required to make various financial Returns, which were made partly to the Home Office and partly to the Poor Law Board, and there was no obligation whatever to return the amount of outstanding loans. When Sir George Lewis was at the Home Office in 1860 he brought in a Bill, in which provision was made for returns of the expenditure of local authorities, but not as to outstanding liabilities, and although, in point of fact, some information had been received under that head, there was no means or opportunity of classifying or analyzing the accounts properly. In 1872 various incidents occurred which render that year important as the commencement of a new system. The duty of collecting these Returns was transferred to the Local Government Board exclusively, and an identification of functions and duties took place between the Urban Sanitary Authorities and Muni-

  953
  cipal Town Councils which led to the clearing up of difficulties. In 1873 my hon. Friend who is now Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Salt) procured a Return which shed a good deal of light on the indebtedness of the local authorities; and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) also procured some valuable and comprehensive Returns. These, together with the information collected by the Department, furnished the foundation of the statement made in 1873, that the local indebtedness of the country at that time amounted to £72,000,000. About 12 months later the Return was made at £84,000,000; and according to the Returns obtained during the last few weeks the total amount of indebtedness at the present time might be set down at £92,191,281. But these figures require considerable correction before it can be assumed that the difference between them represents the addition to local indebtedness between the three years referred to. In 1873 the outstanding loans which were returned amounted to £72,000,000; but subsequent information has shown that large sums of money were not included, which we now know ought to have been included. For instance, from Liverpool there was owing £2,200,000, which was not included in the Returns, from Manchester, £2,300,000, from Blackburn, £300,000, and from Oldham, £500,000, and from other places sums making a total aggregate of £8,000,000 which had been omitted, so that the total aggregate for 1872–3 should have been £80,000,000, instead of £72,000,000. In 1873–4 the Return of outstanding loans was given as £84,000,000, and for reasons similar to those which I have just adverted to, there should be added to that figure the sum of £1,500,000, so that the correct total of last year would be £85,500,000. From that total we have the sum of £5,500,000 to be accounted for as the net increased amount of indebtedness for that year, within which about £3,000,000 of loan would have been paid off. The information and Returns we have from other sources show that there was received during that year, of borrowed money, £8,173,000. The chief item of which this amount is made up is a sum received by Town Councils and Urban Sanitary Authorities, £3,500,000; the Metropolitan Board of Works, £1,500,000; Harbour Authori-
  954
  ties, £1,500,000—making a total of £6,500,000. The difference probably consists of sums borrowed under existing powers, which had not been fully availed of. Up to the present time the amount of indebtedness may be taken at £92,500,000. Deducting from that the corrected Return of last year—namely, £85,500,000, we have an apparent difference of £7,000,000, but to that should be added £4,000,000, which may be estimated as the amount of loans paid off during 1874–5, and this would show a difference of £11,000,000 as compared with the indebtedness of last year. The amount raised on loan in 1874–5 was about £11,500,000, which was for the most part thus distributed—Town Councils and Urban Sanitary Authorities, £5,000,000; School Boards, £1,500,000; Metropolitan Board of Works, £2,500,000; and Harbours, £1,500,000—making a total of £10,500,000. Thus the increase on the net indebtedness, after deducting the repayments, between 1872–3 and 1873–4 was £5,500,000, and the similar sum between 1873–4 and 1874–5 was £7,000,000. Of this sum, the Metropolitan Board of Works, Harbour Authorities, and School Boards raised £5,500,000. If we look at totals of loans under various heads, we find that Poor Law Authorities stand for £3,500,000, County Authorities for £3,144,000, Municipal Authorities for £5,900,000, Metropolis Local Management for £1,888,000, Metropolitan Board of Works for £11,174,000, Urban Sanitary Authorities for £33,274,000. The result is that this £92,000,000 is composed of £63,000,000 charged upon rates, and £28,000,000 charged upon tolls and dues. This sum, which I may put at £92,000,000, which is due from local authorities in England and Wales, strikes one as enormous, but it is worth while to analyze it to see of what it consists. About one-half of the whole is owing—by the Metropolitan Board of Works, £12,000,000; and the Urban Sanitary Authorities, £33,500,000; making together £45,500,000. This represents substantial value—works which either of themselves are valuable property or which add to the value of property—namely, sewers, street improvements, gas, and water. Some persons may say that this is not local taxation in the strict sense of the word, but is rather

  955
  the voluntary adoption on the part of urban communities of an economical method of public financing with the view of securing for private individuals the comforts, conveniences, and necessities of life. It may be said that these are in the nature of payment of rents rather than of rates—they are, in fact, of the nature of additional rent paid by the occupier for what he would otherwise have to provide for his own comfort and convenience. On analyzing the £92,000,000 from another point of view, it will be found that about £30,000,000 is charged on tolls and dues, and about £60,000,000 upon a revenue derived from rates of about £20,000,000 per annum. If we deduct the £45,000,000 due by the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Urban Sanitary Authorities, there remains only £15,000,000 for all others—namely, County Authorities, Borough Authorities, Poor Law Authorities, Highways, and School Boards. Again, if we add to the sum of £45,000,000 due by the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Urban Authorities, the sum of £21,000,000 charged on harbours and docks, there will be a total of £65,000,000, or two-thirds of the whole. The most important of the items is the £33,500,000 due by the Sanitary Authorities; and four great towns owe nearly half of this enormous sum—Liverpool, £4,200,000; Manchester, £4,500,000; Bradford, £2,500,000; Leeds, £3,200,000; making altogether £14,400,000. The total charge of money borrowed on the rates is £60,000,000. The total value of rate able property at the present time may be estimated at £120,000,000, and, therefore, assuming an equally spreading charge over the whole country, the sum borrowed would amount to about half of the yearly rate able value. The question is whether the charge is increasing in proportion to the increase of the rate able value. I can hardly give a satisfactory answer to that question; but, taking 1867–8, when my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty obtained a Return on the subject, the total rate able value stood at that time at £100,688,000; in 1869–70, at £104,405,000; in 1871–2, at £109,000,000;in 1873–4, at£115,606,000; and a Return not yet presented would show that it was estimated for 1874–5 at £120,000,000. If a locality be indebted to the extent of only one-half
  956
  of its rate able value, that might be considered a moderate figure; under the Sanitary Acts it was so considered, and unless a larger sum was required there was no occasion to apply to Parliament. The total indebtedness, as compared with the total rate able value, is not, therefore, comparatively speaking, unmanageable. I am only able to form a rough estimate as to what the condition of things may be a year hence; but from the £92,000,000 £4,500,000 should be deducted for capital paid off, and that would leave £85,500,000 of local indebtedness. On the other side, the Local Government Board have sanctioned the borrowing of £1,500,000; Local Acts, £6,500,000, not all wanted within the year; School Boards, £1,500,000—total, £9,500,000, or £10,000,000. Therefore, the amount of local indebtedness 12 months hence will be about £95,000,000. The House will not fail to be struck by the large amount borrowed under private Acts of Parliament—namely, £6,500,000, and it may be interesting to know the relative proportion between the sums thus raised and the sums raised by the authority of the Local Government Board. In 1872 there were powers given for borrowing under local Acts to the amount of £2,831,000, and by the Local Government Board the power for borrowing to the amount of £602,000. In 1873 the sums respectively were £1,389,500 and £980,000; in 1874, £1,094,000 and £1,457,000; and in 1875, £6,505,000 and £1,975,000. The combined average for the four years would be found to be £4,208,000. Practically speaking the great bulk of the money is not borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, but privately from bankers and capitalists, by the great corporations of the Kingdom. It has been under the Sanitary and Education Acts that the Public Works Loan Commissioners have advanced at a cheap rate the greater part of the money to which the present Bill refers. So much for the indebtedness of the local authorities. Now as to the expenditure. In 1874 the sum of £24,500,000 was raised by local taxation, and in 1875 the sum was £26,500,000, showing an increase of £2,000,000. The principal items of the increase in the past year were again the Metropolitan Board, £250,000; sanitary rates, £2,212,000; and school board rates, £250,000. Among the principal

  957
  items of decrease are the Poor Law charges and the police rates. Therefore, it maybe said that the urban sanitary rates, the school board rates, and the Metropolitan Board rates show the principal items of increase, while on the other side a decrease is shown under the heads of police rates and Poor Law charges. There is a continuous and satisfactory reduction on the expenditure upon poor rates. The reduction has been going on for the last three years, and shows a decrease of upwards of £500,000 from what it was in 1871–2. In 1871–2 the reduced amount, as compared with the preceding year, was stated at £315,324; in 1873–4 a corresponding comparison showed a decrease of £73,212, and in 1874–5 the reduced expenditure on the poor rates, as compared with the preceding year, amounted to £176,476, showing a decrease in three years of more than £500,000. We expect that next year there will be some increase in the rates levied by urban sanitary authorities, and probably also in the metropolis. Whilst I am afraid that there may be an increase in these rates, the burden will be decreased by the increase in the value of the property from which the revenue is raised. There will also be probably a diminution in the poor rate, and generally speaking the system of subvention that has been in operation for two years will also affect the poor rate and the police rate Returns to probably the amount of £300,000 more than is shown in the present Returns. It may be observed that although the subvention is given in the name of poor rate and police and county rate, the greater proportion of such subvention goes in the mitigation of the charges upon the dwellers in towns, rather than of those which press upon the dwellers in the country. Of this subvention, in round numbers, £650,000 goes to the dwellers in towns, and £450,000 to those who dwell in the country. The general conclusion also is that the amount paid in the shape of non-remunerative rates shows a tendency to decrease, whilst the amount of payment to remunerative rates shows undoubtedly a tendency to increase. I see no reason why there should be any increase of rates except those levied for the purpose of sanitary improvements, education, and roads. It would be absurd to institute too close
  958
  a comparison between the indebtedness of local rates and the public burdens of the country; but still I think that we may fairly put the two together by way of illustration. The public Debt is £750,000,000 in round numbers, which is in the ratio of 10 to 1 to the annual revenue of the country, which is about £75,000,000, whilst the local debts charged upon the rates are £60,000,000, or in the ratio of 3 to 1 only to the amount of the rates. With few exceptions also the whole of the local debt is being rapidly paid off within periods ranging over 30, 40, or 60 years; the reduction being made by way of annual payments or sinking funds, as the case may be; and a great improvement has taken place of late years in this respect. In the course of carrying on investigations in my Department with a view to sanctioning loans for public works, we occasionally find that money has been borrowed for the payment of debts which have been previously incurred; but this is a diminishing practice, and there is a growing disposition to pay much more attention to the strict principles of finance. Then, again, Parliament has made many changes that tend to produce greater accuracy and right conduct in reference to local finance. In every Private Bill there is a clause inserted requiring an annual Return of the amount invested in the sinking fund for the repayment of the loan; and if there is any failure in acting up to this obligation the Local Government Board may get a mandamus in order to compel the local body to make payments off the debt. In the Act of last year there is an admirable provision which enables security to be taken for the execution of the works for which public money has been advanced, and the central authorities may satisfy themselves that the money will be properly repaid. If I should be asked whether everything has been done that could be done in the way of improving the system of borrowing and lending public money, I may say that I think that some additional precautions should be taken by Parliament to secure uniformity between the practice of the two Houses of Parliament as to the provisions which are inserted in Private Bills. I am not sure that the principles which are acted upon in the Local Government Office might not with advantage be communicated to the Private

  959
  Bill Committees of both Houses of Parliament. And there is no security that those who direct the action of Committees of both Houses will take the same views of the subject. Indeed, within the last two or three years there have been cases where the money proposed to be borrowed has been spread over such a long series of years as certainly would not be sanctioned by any Government Department. As a general rule, the re-payment of a loan should be coterminous with the estimated duration of the works for which the money is required; but I do not say that that should be a rule without an exception, for there are some works or objects which are almost permanent. My right hon. Friend has been good enough to refer to the statement that I should have to submit as one that would be of an interesting character; but I can hardly claim for it that epithet, though I have endeavoured to make it as clear as I could. I think that I may fairly say that this is a subject that requires and deserves the attention of the House, and ought from time to time to be brought under their notice. On the other hand, I see no reason for alarm or for anxiety in the extent to which borrowing powers have been exercised, though some localities may have gone beyond what they should have done; yet, looking at the question generally, we cannot but believe that a vast increase in comfort and happiness has been brought about by this great expenditure. As to the total of the figures, I do not think that we have any great reason to complain. I omitted to state that I have endeavoured to make a calculation as to the average amount of rates which are now levied over the whole country. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty some time ago made certain calculations as to rates, and he stated that in 1867 the average rate over the whole Kingdom was 3s. 3¾d. We in our calculations make the average rate over England and Wales, including the Metropolises, 3s. 8¾d.; that for the Metropolis, 4s. 1¼d.; and for England and Wales, exclusive of the Metropolis, 3s. 7¾d. My right hon. Friend estimated that for the whole of the rural districts in the Kingdom the average rate was 2s. 9¼d. in the pound; and I believe that if we could now arrive at the exact estimate we should find that
  960
  the average rate of the rural districts is from 2s. 6d. to 2s. 9d. in the pound; therefore, the pressure of the rates upon the rural districts has not increased, but is rather inclined to retrograde. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) is about to move an Amendment as to the relative incidence of the rates upon owners and occupiers. No man is better qualified to discuss such a matter than the hon. Gentleman; but I hope that the House will not be delayed from going into Committee until that knotty question has been settled. I have no doubt that the greater part of the current rates in the urban sanitary districts are in the nature of rent for increased value, and if these rates could be placed directly upon the landlord he would recoup himself by demanding an increased rent from the occupier. In the country the case is different, for there the rates fall ultimately as a charge upon the landlord. I am not aware that the occupiers of this Kingdom have desired to see a change in the mode in which the rates are levied; and there are many reasons why it would be inconvenient to the owners as well as to the occupiers to have the system altered, though the mode of levying is a totally different question from that of the actual incidence of taxation. I shall listen with interest to anything that may be said upon the subject; but I think that any discussion upon questions such as these may well stand over until after this Bill has passed.
  MR. FAWCETT,in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, that nothing was further from his attention than to offer any unnecessary obstacle to the passing of the Bill; but, as the introduction of it had been chosen by the Government as a convenient occasion for making a most important and valuable statement, he thought it would not be considered inappropriate if he availed himself of the progress of the Bill to point out what he conceived to be the peculiar injustice associated with the present mode of borrowing money and the hardship it inflicted upon occupiers of houses and other rate able property as distinct from the owners. They had been told that the total indebtedness amounted to £92,000,000, and that the amount had increase £7,000,000 within the year. He should like to know what proportion

  961
  of these loans was to be paid off at 20, 30, and 50 years; and beyond this they had not heard what was the rate of interest which was payable upon the loans. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the Government were considering whether they could advance money to local authorities at 3½per cent. It was evident that pressure was being put upon them to do this, and he was anxious to learn whether they were likely to yield to it. The evidence given before the Public Works Loan Commissioners last Session by Mr. Welby and others connected with the Treasury conclusively showed that lending money at 3½ per cent was not in the long run a paying investment for the Government, and, therefore, the making of these advances was one way of relieving local burdens. The local taxation of this country, which a year since was only £24,000,000, was now £26,500,000, so that, while the Government was constantly giving public money in aid of local burdens, yet, in spite of these subventions from Imperial funds, the amount levied from the ratepayers was increasing at the rate of more than £2,000,000 a-year. In reference to the Resolution which he had placed upon the Paper, he might say that he did not intend to enter into any complicated economical discussion as to the incidence of rates, but would make his remarks as practical as possible. The President of the Local Government Board spoke of it as an advantage connected with our present system of borrowing that the principal and interest of loans were paid off now in a shorter term of years than before; but the shorter the term the greater was the injustice inflicted upon occupiers in respect of the repayment of heavy loans incurred for such purposes as the building of county lunatic asylums and the carrying out of main drainage works. If the money were borrowed for 21 years and involved a rate of 1s. in the pound, for example, a farmer whose rent was £1,000 a-year would pay £50 a-year in extra rates, a clergyman with a living worth £800 would pay £40 a-year, and the occupier of the mansion of the proprietor, rated not upon its cost but upon its letting value, and let, or capable of being let, at £250, would pay £12 10 s. a-year, so that the owner of the estate, with an income perhaps of £10,000 a-year, if he were non-resident,
  962
  would not contribute a farthing to the cost of a great improvement, which improved the health of the district and improved the value of the property. The farmer would contribute four times as much, and the clergyman three times as much, as the proprietor if he resided on the estate. This injustice deserved the special attention of those who professed to be the friends of the farmers and of the clergy. In inducing the farmers to clam our to save a halfpenny in the pound on the local rates—which went only into the landlords'pockets—was to cause them to run entirely on the wrong scent; but if the farmers and the clergy wished to remedy this great injustice in connection with local taxation, they would obtain for England what was already done for Scotland and Ireland, where all new local charges were borne equally by the landlord and the occupier. In the rural districts ratepayers were in a more unfortunate position than they were in towns which had local representation, for county rates were imposed by authorities who were not responsible to the ratepayers, and those authorities could borrow money for public works which would improve their own property, and the principal and interest might be repaid by leaseholders and tenants without the proprietors contributing a shilling. The right hon. Gentleman said it was right that the occupiers should contribute towards the cost of improvements, but it was not right that they should pay both capital and interest as they did at present. Even in the metropolis, if £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 were borrowed for 21 years for an embankment or main drainage works, an occupier who had taken a lease for 21 years just before the new rate was imposed would have to pay it during the continuance of his lease, and at its expiration he would have paid for an improvement of the property which would make it worth a higher rent, and which would be paid by some one else if he declined to pay it. Much had been said of compulsory tenant right; but this was what he called compulsory tenant wrong. This injustice would be remedied to a certain extent if new charges were borne partly by the owner, for re-valuation and increase of rent could occur only at the expiration of leases. It was contended by the claimants for Imperial subventions that what

  963
  was saved in rates was saved to the tenants at will, and if that were true the converse or reverse must be true, that new charges came out of their pockets. The injustice could be remedied, and the 38th clause of the Bill recognized the principle for which he was contending, for it said that if any new charge were imposed by carrying it out one-half might be deducted by any occupier from the rent he had to pay. The unpopularity of the school rate in England, which was swollen by the repayment of money borrowed for the building of schools, was partly owing to the fact that the rate fell exclusively upon occupiers, but the school rate occasioned less unpopularity in Scotland, where it was often heavier than in England, because in Scotland one-half was paid by owners, who also paid one-half of the poor rate and all the county rate. In Ireland there was a similar recognition of the principle for which he contended. There half the poor rate, which included the sanitary rate, was paid by the owners and occupiers, and the same with regard to the rate for the payment of the national school teachers in Ireland. If the reform which he advocated was carried out it would be a recognition of an important principle based on justice, and when this question was understood a great demand would be made which the Government would not be able to resist, both from the country and the town occupier that this justice should be conceded to them. For every reduction of local rates obtained at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer the public had to pay the price of seeing centralization interfering more and more in local affairs. In future new charges must be borne partly by the owner and partly by the occupiers, which would carry with it no disadvantage, but transfer the charge from one individual to another. The owners of property had the power to effect this, and, in doing so, they did nothing more than carry out the principle of self-sacrifice on behalf of those they represented, and who claimed to be peculiarly their friends. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
  MR. RATHBONE,in seconding the Amendment, said: I can assure the right hon. Member opposite, in common with the hon. Member for Hackney, that I should be sorry to delay the carry-
  964
  ing of this Bill further than is necessary to discuss the various points which have been clearly laid before the House. I wish, however, that the President of the Local Government Board had not drawn quite such a couleur de rose picture of the state of our local government and the prospects of our local funds. But before going into the questions raised by his speech I wish to say that I support the view that the rates should be divided between owners and occupiers, because I believe that none are so deeply interested in the management of our local affairs as the landowners of this country. I think it desirable also to remove everything that should create any sore feeling between landlord and tenant. There is a feeling of soreness in the mind of the tenant, in periods of distress, which would not exist if his burdens were shared not merely as a matter of charity, but as a right. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Hackney has called the attention of the House to this subject, for I believe that the hardship and injustice which the present system inflicts upon the occupiers at times of distress are very serious; but, serious as this is, it is as nothing in comparison with its injurious effect in impairing the efficiency and economy of local administration. I was speaking only the other day to the Chairman of the Board of Guardians of a large Union in the South of England—a very wealthy landowner, a clergyman, and a Conservative. He has taken a most active part for many years in the management of his Union, and he spoke as strongly as the most Radical reformer could do of the pressing necessity of the reform of our local government. He said that he found it impossible to persuade a single landowner to join him in his efforts; they did not seem to feel that the rise or fall of the rates concerned them, because those rates did not directly fall upon them. In these, as in other matters, once put things upon an unfair and unjust footing, and you never know how far the inconvenience and evils resulting there from will extend; and the unfairness of the incidence of our local taxation is not confined to the want of fair apportionment to occupiers and owners. There is equal unfairness in the incidence of our present system of taxation as between occupier and occupier. This unfairness meets us at every turn, whe-

  965
  ther we try to obtain suitable areas for local government, efficient local authorities, or in any way to deduce something like order out of the present admitted confusion of our local organization. This is the most serious evil of all, for, important as is the relative incidence of local taxation, it is even more important that the proceeds of that taxation should not be wasted, but should be so spent as to give value received for its expenditure, and that our local taxation should not be in excess of what is necessary. The confusion and weakness of our local administration, the inefficient and excessive expenditure, the rapidly and dangerously increasing liabilities of our local authorities, are intolerable. There is an increase of over £10,500,000 in the indebtedness of our local authorities last year; and if something is not done for improving the conditions of local government, the burden will become so intolerable that the country will demand more stringent and radical treatment, and require that it should be confided to other hands. I hope, however, that this Government will show that it conceives that the truly Conservative mode of dealing with this question is to do so in time, before a drastic cure has been demanded by popular clam our. Not only the last and present Prime Ministers, but almost every statesman of eminence, has asserted in the strongest manner the importance of strengthening, simplifying, and giving renewed vitality to our system of local government; yet no Government has taken even the preliminary steps necessary to make an orderly and well-considered reform possible. Both sides have, to use the common cant phrase, which is only too expressive, introduced measures touching what they call the fringe of the question; but it is evident to any one who has interested himself in the subject that no Government has yet framed anything like a comprehensive plan, or, I repeat, taken even the preliminary measures necessary to enable it to frame even a comprehensive plan, of which the measures it proposed were calculated to be a consistent part. I venture to think that if the late Government, had they when they came into office told off one of their ablest Ministers, giving him the best professional assistance and the aid of a Royal Commission, to obtain trustworthy information, and to enable him to mature his plans,
  966
  they would have been able, when they had passed their Irish Church and Land Bills and their Elementary Education Bill, to undertake with effect the reform of the local government of this country; and I am not alone in thinking that had they taken this course they would have been in power at this moment, with the general assent of the country. It appears to me that the present Government are committing exactly the same blunder committed by their Predecessors. Perhaps I may say one word as to the great assistance which might be rendered to the Government by a Royal Commission consisting of four or five Members of each House of Parliament, and three or four able men, not Members of either House, but bringing official and legal experience and knowledge to the task. Such a Commission would materially aid the Minister in maturing his plans; especially would it help in the practical details necessary to combine the greatest efficiency with the least disturbance; and, moreover, the Members of such a Commission would in the course of their inquiry become so thoroughly acquainted with the different bearings of the subject that they would afford most efficient aid to the Minister in carrying his measure through the House. No reform since the new Poor Law is more important to the character and future welfare of the country; but, like that beneficent enactment, it must be no Party measure, but carried by the concurrence of the statesmen of both sides. Such a Commission as is suggested, by combining leading Members of both sides, would facilitate this desired co-operation. The hap-hazard legislation of the last 40 years has been wrong and pernicious in two ways. Whenever anything was required in the direction of social or sanitary reform, a fresh rate was imposed, without regard to the justice or injustice of its incidence, and a new Board was created; and, if the injustice was too strong to be borne, the sop of a loan was thrown in to mitigate the feeling of injustice there from resulting, creating, as injustice always does, complications and difficulties, often producing evils far more serious than mere pecuniary inequality. The multiplication of local authorities and elections diminished public interest and vigilance, and weakened the dignity and attraction of local authorities. Just

  967
  when more good men were rendered necessary, fewer good men were willing and available for the duties of local administration. Every year while reform is delayed, the number of local authorities and their official expenses and liabilities are rapidly increasing, and create a rapidly increasing expenditure and difficulty in the way of reform. I appeal to those who are best acquainted with this subject; I appeal to the Ministers themselves who have had charge of matters of this kind, whether there is not wanting that exact and comprehensive knowledge of the facts of local organization, as it now exists, which is an essential preliminary, not merely for devising a remedy, but for knowing what the disease itself is. We are in the dark about the incidence of taxation itself. We do not know, and the Government cannot tell us, into whose pockets the relief will go which is promised even by the Bills of this Session. The right hon. Gentleman has made a most interesting, and, on the whole, valuable statement on the subject; but it is not possible for him to tell us, for instance, how much of the subvention of half the cost of the police will go to the town ratepayers, and how much to the farmer. The Returns relating to local taxation and expenditure now published do not furnish the necessary materials, either for comparing the ordinary expenses of local administration in urban and rural districts, or for determining either in urban or in rural districts the relation between the expenditure for particular purposes, and the incidence of the burden of that expenditure, or for ascertaining the ordinary urban expenditures for the different heads of the so-called sanitary purposes. For example, there appear to be no means of discovering how much of the £6,000,000 spent on the relief of the poor outside the metropolis is borne by urban and how much by rural ratepayers, unless in the few cases where the boundaries of a town are conterminous with those of a union; how much of the millions spent on county police represents the police employed in urban districts other than boroughs; how much of the £6,000,000 of urban expenditure for "sanitary purposes" belongs to new works, and how much to ordinary expenditure; or how much of ordinary expenditure for "other purposes" belongs
  968
  to the several heads of lighting, water and sewerage. And since the totals do not distinguish between places where gas and water are supplied by private companies, and places where gasworks and waterworks are provided by the local authority, they would, in any case, fail to give any real account of the cost of these important items. Further, there are £3,000,000 of receipts, and £2,500,000 of expenditure, with respect to which no indication whatever is given of the sources of the receipts, or of the objects of the expenditure. It is, therefore, impossible either to discover the present incidence of taxation, or to calculate with any precision how far it would be disturbed or altered by the operation of any new scheme which may be proposed. Nor is it probable that any Return which could be obtained, under the present condition of areas and authorities, would furnish the desired information. The right hon. Gentleman has told us the grand total of local indebtedness. The rapid growth of that total may startle and alarm this House; but it will probably not give a moment's uneasiness to a single ratepayer. Why? Because, in the existing condition of things, the ratepayer does not, and cannot, know how much of the burden affects his own town or parish. If the ratepayer's district were the same for all purposes, and were governed by one body, he would know the total debt of his district. He would jealously watch its growth. He would know the reason why for every increase; but, as things are now, the truth is concealed from him. For some purposes he is governed by the County Justices, who have a debt for asylums and prisons; for other purposes he is governed by Guardians, who have a debt for workhouses, and perhaps for drains; for other purposes he is governed by a school board, who have a debt for schools. So with highways, and perhaps with cemeteries, and so on. The ratepayer could not find out the grand total of the indebtedness of his district, if he tried. In fact, he does not live in one district, but in many districts. He could not bring pressure to bear upon his various governing bodies, if he tried. How can he influence all at once the Justices, the Guardians, the School Board, the Highway Board, the Burial Board? This evil of growing indebtedness can only be dealt with

  969
  locally; but it will not, and it cannot, be dealt with locally until its existence and its tendencies have been brought home to the ratepayer, and they cannot be brought home to the ratepayer until you make simpler areas and simpler governing bodies. More than this, the debt will never be brought under control until owners as well as occupiers are made to feel the burden while it is being created, and are both empowered and induced by interest to take an active part in economical administration. And really such reforms as the measure before the House, and the Act which it proposes to amend, and even the relief offered by the Government to local taxpayers, are, in the absence of reform of the administration, of very doubtful benefit. Your facilities for borrowing and your contributions to local taxpayers are very apt to be swallowed up by the expenditure of local authorities too numerous to be vigilantly watched or efficiently organized. The very creation of these loans on unsatisfactory areas is a most serious obstacle to then rectification. Just let me give a few instances of the anomalous, unjust way in which our local taxation is at present levied. Take the case of highways, and the House must not consider that I am wandering from the question even of loans, for I know a case in which the excessive charge for highways on a district has led to borrowing money for work that really ought to have been paid out of current taxation. Take a district lying between one district containing coal mines and a manufacturing town. A road runs through it, which passes through this district which is not relieved by the rates levied on the mines or the town. The tax upon that intermediate district is enormous, and the benefits which it derives are very small indeed. In some instances as much as 5s. in the pound will be levied for the support of that road, of which the inhabitants make very little use, and from which they derive only an indirect benefit. I am aware that the Government have made a very creditable attempt to remedy that grievance in the Highway Bill; but if that Bill ever comes on it will be perfectly easy to show that, for want of well-arranged areas and County Boards, it is a very imperfect measure, and could only half meet the injustice which it seeks to remedy. Take another case
  970
  under the present law. If a district remains under the rural sanitary authority the incidence of taxation is very different from what it would be if it were to form itself into a local government district; and it really amounts to a mere accident under which of these authorities your taxes happen to be levied. Clearly, one or other of these systems of levying taxes must be unjust. I will give you another instance. I had a letter from the principal landowner in a parish containing two large villages. The rate able value of the parish is £34,000. The rural sanitary authority propose to adopt a drainage scheme for one of these villages and its neighbourhood, which would involve a rate of 1s. in the pound on the whole rate able value of the entire parish. My friend owns property at the other end of the parish, with the other village built upon it. He is divided from the district which it is proposed to drain by two miles, a river, two valleys, and consequently two water sheds, and could not by any possibility derive benefit, present or future, from the proposal. Yet his property will be subject to 1s. in the pound, or £120 a-year additional rates, for improvements from which neither he nor his tenants can derive any benefit whatever. Without the facilities for borrowing from the Public Loans Commissioners, works of this kind would not be attempted. In giving them the means of executing such works at the charge of future generations, we are bound to take some security that the proceeds of the loans are put under the charge of authorities more efficient than our present ones, and that the taxation to repay them should be more equitably levied than it now is. Such anomalies are constantly occurring, and will increase rapidly with the spread of the call for sanitary improvement. They began with the towns; they are now extending to the suburban and country districts; and I assert, and should at the right time be prepared to show, that such injustice is absolutely unnecessary, and that in applying a remedy to it we should remove some of the greatest difficulties in the way of obtaining suitable areas and suitable authorities for local government. This is not an occasion to go into detail in these matters, but I would again urge that the Government should appoint a Royal Commission to assist them in their investigations. A

  971
  great deal of thought has been bestowed upon this subject during the last five or six years, and such a Commission would find at its disposal an immense amount of practical and useful suggestions. Having devoted for many years very close attention to the subject, I do not hesitate to say that there is not a difficulty attaching to the improvements required which cannot be met by simply using the results of our own experience. Every difficulty which affects the country generally has in one form or another been met by experiments in local Acts or otherwise, the results of which we have only to see, and in no case shall we be obliged to resort to any untried theories or experiments. This being the case, I conceived that this Government, possessing as it does among its supporters an unusual number of men trained in the work of local government, are utterly inexcusable if they delay any longer systematically to consider and undertake the reform of our local administration and taxation. In all my experience of and investigations into the subject, I have seen no reason to despair of local self-government in England. On the contrary, I feel strongly that it is the very vital source of the manhood and vigour of our individual and national life; and I think it will be a disgrace to our statesmen, and a discredit to the practical common sense of Englishmen, if we allow it to remain any longer in its present state of confusion, inefficiency, and waste.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, an unduly large proportion of the charge involved in the payment of the interest and capital of the loans which are raised by local authorities falls upon the occupiers, as distinguished from the owners, of land, houses, and other rate able property,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, it was impossible to deny there was a great deal of truth in the remark of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) as to the incidence of the rates gradually accumulating on the occupiers throughout the country. He feared, however, that
  972
  the only remedy for the state of things which the hon. Member had described was to be found in the good feeling of the owners of property. If they were not willing to come to the relief of those who held property under them, he did not see how the Legislature could interfere in the matter. The present Bill promoted and instigated still further the local expenditure of the country, and permitted the Government to raise money for the purpose of making loans for that object. Before they stimulated local expenditure, and prepared to raise money which would have to be repaid, they ought carefully to adjust the means by which that money was to be collected. That, however, had not been done. They had not taken the preliminary step of ascertaining their measure of value for the purpose of rating property for local taxation. This, he thought, was creditable neither to the House nor to the country. He had a very serious grievance to complain of in reference to the progress of a Bill which he introduced early in the present Session for the purpose of relieving, not only his own constituents, but the inhabitants of the metropolis generally, from a burden imposed on them in the matter of Imperial taxation. Under the imposition of the house tax the whole country was liable to be taxed upon the annual value of houses; but by the Metropolis Valuation Act that annual value was converted into gross rental, and this change made a difference of 20 per cent to his constituents and imposed a tax in addition to the house duty wrongfully upon £5,000,000, the sum by which the gross value of the house property of the metropolis exceeded the net or rate able value. This was the result of the persistent encroachment of fiscal rapacity. With regard to the Bill itself, he thought the large funds which the Government held in hand in the shape of savings-bank deposits might very properly be employed in making these loans. He thought it would be a very advantageous arrangement, and he was not aware that there was any constitutional impediment to it. He did not wish to prevent the Bill going into Committee, but he hoped some consideration would be given to the points to which he had drawn attention.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not wish to retard the public business, and there-

  973
  fore he should be very brief in his remarks. At the same time, it must be remembered that this was a somewhat important and quite a new occasion when they had placed before them in a very interesting manner the general state of local finance in the country by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The Government, therefore, might fairly expect them to ask any questions with regard to the progress of local taxation which were suggested by their Local Taxation Budget. With regard to the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he would say the subject was a most important one, which thoroughly deserved the attention of the House. He had done great service in ventilating it; but, at the same time, he (Mr. Goschen) trusted that he would not divide the House upon the present occasion, because no action could be taken upon it at present. He would remind the House that a Committee had examined into the matter in 1870, and that the majority reported in favour of a certain proportion of rates being placed on the owners as well as on the occupiers. This was not, therefore, a new idea of the hon. Member for Hackney; it had the sanction of a Parliamentary Committee; and though there was some difference of opinion on that Committee, and though certain resolutions were carried by a majority of one, there was among the minority a considerable adhesion of opinion that a certain proportion of rates should be placed on the owner as well as on the occupier. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke would not, even at that period of the Session, encourage the idea that it was absolutely impossible to deal with the question. The question well deserved the consideration of the Government. It was difficult to know how to get at the owner, but there was the precedent of the Income Tax. It was against the law for an owner to contract himself out of it, and the occupier was at liberty to deduct the tax from the owner. It was said that this was a question which did not excite much attention in the country districts. The reason why the farmers did not feel much interest in a division of the rates between landlord and tenant was, that they were afraid that its consequence would be a disturbance and
  974
  re-arrangement of rents throughout the country. In a large part of the country the farms were not rack-rented, and the farmers feared that if the rates were divided between landlords and tenants there would be a general re-adjustment of the rents. It was said that in the end the rates were really paid by the owner. That was, no doubt, true as a general principle; but where there had been a large increase of the rates the increase chiefly fell on the occupier, who, as a rule, was not in a position to propose a change in the terms of his agreement with his landlord. And now, adverting to the interesting statement of the President of the Local Government Board, which showed in a graphic manner the progress of expenditure and of rating in different parts both of town and country, and the increase or decrease which had taken place, he would venture to call attention to the remarkable fact stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the unremunerative rates had at length begun to decrease, while remunerative rates were increasing. He recommended that fact to the attention of the Local Taxation Committee, which sat in London, and boasted that they had prevented the passing of 16 Bills which would add to the burdens of the ratepayers. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night intended to give a reply to a question which he put to him when he said that the relief now given was "the crowning point." He ventured again to appeal to him, so that there might be no misunderstanding, and to ask if he was able frankly to state to the House that the programme of relief sketched and drawn for him by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) had been at length carried out. There were circumstances in the future over which he had no control, and it would be wrong to press him unduly on this point; but he should be glad to know whether they might understand by this expression, "the crowning point," that they had now arrived at the time when those who had insisted with great pertinacity on relief being given from local burdens were fairly satisfied that the Government had redeemed their promise to the ratepayers, and that from this time forward they would stand on clear ground in that respect. He understood that they repudiated the idea that the last boon

  975
  was, in fact, to be considered as a small instalment for the agricultural interest. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be explicit on this point. The President of the Local Government Board gave the rates at 2s. 9d. in the pound in agricultural portions of the country, and he now put them at 2s. 6d., which he considered was not unduly high. The President of the Local Government Board was speaking as the authoritative organ of the Government when he expressed that view, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would concur in the view he had stated.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEY,referring to the difficulty which had arisen as to the construction of the Act of 1875, expressed a hope that the opportunity would be taken of inserting a clause in this Bill which would extend the discretion of the Public Works Loan Commissioners—if such was the intention of the Legislature—to restrict the term for which loans were granted. The term of 50 years was considered too long, and 30 years, which was the usual period for which loans were granted in Scotland, would be preferable. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this point.
  THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUERwould first of all pay a tribute of thanks to the hon. Gentleman and the other Commissioners for the assistance they gave in undertaking this work. Representations had been made to the Treasury by the Public Works Loan Commissioners within the last few days on this very point; but, after taking the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, he saw there was some difficulty, and it might be advisable to take the opportunity afforded by this Bill of carrying out the object to which he had referred. What he proposed to do was to commit the Bill pro formâ;, to meet the points which his hon. Friend had suggested. He would say generally that, in introducing the Bill, what the Government desired was, as far as possible, to divest the Treasury of the inconvenient control and power of granting relaxations which it possessed under the old system. The Government thought that there were questions as to the manner in which the Public Works Loan Commissioners had exercised their duty which ought to be discussed in Parliament, for they believed it would be most desirable that
  976
  Parliament should be cognizant of the manner in which the Commissioners exercised the discretion given to them in apportioning the loans under special Acts, the administration of which was entrusted to them. This was the principal point of detail in connection with the Bill, which would be open to consideration when it got into Committee. Her Majesty's Government had reason to feel gratified generally at the manner in which the House had appreciated their endeavours, and at the reception which the clear and succinct statement of his right hon. Friend had been received. He hoped, however, that the House would not yield to the temptations to discuss all the questions of local finance and taxation, running as they did into the question of local administration. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had raised a question very pertinent to the subject of the Bill, but which, if discussed fully, would lead into a very wide field. He would abstain from following the hon. Member and those who succeeded him into the question of the incidence of rates upon the owner and occupier; but he would say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), when he asked him to abstain from committing the Government as to any division of rates between owner and occupier, that he was not only making a very moderate request, but one which had been answered by anticipation, because on more than one occasion the present Government had passed measures in which the principle of allowing the tenant to deduct a portion of the rates from the rent was recognized, as in the case of the rating of woods and mines. In the Highways Bill, now on the Table, the same principle had been carried out, and they would be always ready to act on that principle whenever it was applicable. Now, some distinction should be made between sums raised by way of loan for the public service and for what might be called public improvements, which might be distinguished as remunerative and unremunerative. The righthon. Gentleman had called attention to the fact that it appeared from the statement of his right hon. Friend that the burdens of the country in respect of unremunerative expenditure had, in fact, retrograded, and he took occasion to express a hope that we had

  977
  come to an end of the systems of subventions and assistance to local taxation. But the House should bear in mind that if the rates were falling it was due in a great measure to the fact that we had given subventions. The policy to which Her Majesty's Government were pledged had borne very substantial fruit. The right hon. Gentleman would not expect him to make pledges or to embarrass the Government with respect to a future policy. In any adjustment of taxation they must consider local finance as an important point of the question. But he was ready to accept the view which the right hon. Gentleman asked him to accept—namely, that what had been done since Her Majesty's Government acceded to office had been in the nature of a redemption of the pledge which they recognized when they came into office. They had been told last night that they had developed these things by degrees; but they announced from the beginning certain points, though they developed them only by degrees. He wished it to be clearly understood that in this matter they were entering into no pledges for the future. He considered it the duty of the Government in the question of local taxation to pay due attention to the subject of local administration. Whatever they had done with regard to subventions would be most incomplete, and in some respects perhaps productive of mischief, if Her Majesty's Government considered that the whole task before them. They did not pledge themselves to bring forward any great measure of local administration; but they would be anxious, wherever they could do it, to introduce improvements, such as they had indicated on many occasions, for the improvement of local administration, and, therefore, for the relief of burdens, not so much by giving relief from the Imperial Exchequer as by rendering the burdens more lightly to be borne. As he had said already, some loans were applied for the purpose of promoting the public service, some for improvements; and with regard to these there were different considerations to be borne in mind. They must not throw upon the owners of property, for the benefit of the country at large, burdens they would have no share in regulating. Suppose they threw upon a county the burden of building lunatic asylums, they would not do that for the benefit of the
  978
  owners of the county; nor, in general, had owners a voice in determining that such expenditure should be incurred. Then there were a great many other improvements which were forced upon the owners of property. His right hon. Friend had pointed out that a great proportion of the debt was cast on owners by special Acts of Parliament not promoted by them, but rather by the occupiers. What they ought to look at was that if they adjusted the burdens unjustly they threw a great impediment in the way of getting the work properly done. It did not always follow that the owner was a rich man; they had often to deal with poor owners, and that had been found one great difficulty in effecting improvements of great importance. In a pamphlet published some years ago by Mr. Edwin Chadwick, that gentleman stated that in many cases the cost of the improvements amounted to more than the whole rental of the property. Where money was raised by borrowing there was a natural solution. The money raised was charged on the occupier and was to be repaid by him in a certain time, which had reference to the probable duration of the improvement. If the occupier's tenure were equal to the duration of the improvement he enjoyed the benefit of it and paid back the loan, but if his tenure were less the charge remained on the land, and the incoming occupier would have to pay it, and of course arranged his rent accordingly, so that the matter was self-acting if the time for repayment were properly arranged. There was great danger in making the repayment fall within too short a time, for then it would fall too heavily on the occupier, while on the other hand if the time were made too short burdens might be thrown on the proprietor without his consent, and from which he would never derive any benefit. Of course, the balance of the Savings Bank Fund would be made available for the loans; but he could not say to what extent the Commissioners would be prepared to supply a certain proportion of the money. The question of the Valuation Bill and of the House Tax lay outside the immediate field of this measure. They had a Bill before the House on that subject, and he hoped it would be proceeded with if the House assisted the Government to economize time, but they were

  979
  in a difficult position with regard to getting through everything that appeared upon the Order Book. They proposed to reprint the Public Works Loan Bill with Amendments, and he hoped the House would now allow them to proceed, so that they might get the money necessary for the advances.
  MR. CHILDERScomplimented the President of the Local Government Board on the admirable manner in which he had brought the subject before the House. The statistics stated by his right hon. Friend would dispel many illusions. One of these was that the burden of local taxation amounted to £26,500,000 a-year, whereas it was only £22,000,000. Another illusion dispelled was the exaggerated notion of the effect of the Government measures for the relief of local taxation. The charge, as far as the rural districts were concerned, had been reduced from 2s. 9d. in the pound to something between 2s. 6d. and 2s. 9d., or about 1½d. in the pound, whilst in the towns the rates had increased by 2d. or 3d. in the pound, and on the other side there had been an addition of 1d. to the Income Tax. Although he took exception to some of the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped they would not in future years be taken as a rule to guide them, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had rendered good service in qualifying the rather summary refusal with which the President of the Local Government Board met the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney. That Motion touched a question of great interest, and, instead of going into it, the President of the Local Government Board snuffed it out with the remark that in towns it was impossible to get at the owner. He held it was perfectly possible to get at the owner and distribute the charge between the persons interested in house property. It was a problem which was by no means difficult to solve, and it must be solved if they wished to settle the question. They had also to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for another statement he had made, because for some time they had been drifting they knew not where in regard to the relief of local taxation from Imperial funds. In his Budget speech in 1874 there was no allusion to prisons, and when an addition was made to the points then enumerated
  980
  they were justified in suspecting that further claims would be made. The right hon. Gentleman had now said, however, that the pledges of the Government in this matter had been redeemed, so that they knew that if further proposals should be made in the same direction in future they would be entirely new, and not in fulfilment of the promises made two years ago. He was of opinion that the pledges of the Government had been more than sufficiently redeemed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now put the matter on an intelligible footing, and if for no other reason they ought to be very well satisfied with the course of the present debate. He trusted the example which the President of the Local Government Board had set on this occasion in the construction of his new Budget speech would be followed in future years.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he only wished to make one remark with regard to that which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to a boon which the people of Scotland thought they had a right to, in order to put them on an equality with other people. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that probably the public loans to Scotland would be at 4 per cent, and not 3½ per cent. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this question. In Scotland the price of money was lower than anywhere else. The Scotch were a prudent people, and could get money cheaper than it was to be obtained by most. There were very few cases where the local bodies could not borrow at 4 per cent on their own credit, and it would be a great disappointment to them if the Government loans they thought themselves entitled to were not given at 3½ per cent. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was influenced by something that was said by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), with whom he had sat on the Public Works Loan Commission. He (Sir George Campbell) took a different view with regard to the evidence given before the Commission with regard to loans at 3½ per cent to that of the hon. Member. The hon. Member had said that these loans were a loss to the public Exchequer; but he (Sir George Campbell) took a different view of the result of the evidence. It was true it was brought out in evidence that, taking into

  981
  account what had occurred with regard to some old Irish loans, which no one expected would be repaid, and some others, there had been a loss to the Exchequer; but, on the other hand, he thought it was distinctly brought out that modern loans, such as they would give to the prudent people of Scotland, was not likely to prove a loss if given at 3½ per cent, for this reason, that the Government was able to borrow at 3¼ per cent, and when they lent the money so borrowed at 3½ per cent there was a certain margin to cover any possible loss. Therefore, he contended, the kind of loan he referred to was not likely to result in a loss to the Exchequer, and they should be given to the people of Scotland at the rate they expected. He was aware that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, and some others, did not desire that loans should be given from the public Exchequer for local purposes; but, on the other hand, he believed that the control which was obtained over the expenditure was beneficial. He hoped the people of Scotland would not be disappointed in their fair anticipation in respect of this matter.
  MR. BIGGARthought the same rate of interest ought to be charged for all loans raised for public purposes.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, as Parliament was to be made responsible for the loans he hoped the Bill would specify the purposes for which the loans were to be granted and the rate of interest which they were to bear.
  THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUERreplied that it was impossible to specify these matters in the Bill. The Public Works Loan Commissioners would exercise their discretion in making advances; but instead of the Treasury having power to make reductions in the rate of interest, as at present, that power would by the Bill be transferred to Parliament.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 228]; re-committed for Thursday.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
[Lords]—[BILL 111.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  SIRHENRY JAMESwished to observe that the present condition of our judicial administration was very unsatisfactory. It was clear that we did not at present possess suitable machinery for the speedy administration of justice, and therefore it was necessary that those who had practical knowledge of the subject should lend their aid in improving the system. An opportunity for doing this was afforded by the introduction of the present Bill, and he felt certain the Government would carefully consider any suggestion which might be made. Under this Bill a serious question arose as to the constitution of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. For his own part, he should have preferred one Court instead of two Courts of Appeal, but the House had already given its decision on that point, and therefore it would be useless for him to argue it. In his opinion, the Intermediate Court of Appeal had proved to be very inefficient, although the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had argued that that Court had satisfactorily discharged its duties. The inefficiency of the Court was due first to the want of numerical strength; and, secondly, to the want of personal direction. There was no member of this tribunal, with the exception, perhaps, of Lord Justice Mellish, who had been a practising member of the Common Law Bar, and, therefore, the authority of the Court was the less respected when they overruled Common Law judgments. Under the 14th section of the present Bill provision was made to strengthen that Court by adding two permanent and fixed Judges, who, however, were not to be appointed until the death or resignation of certain members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The appointment of the new Judges ought not, in his opinion, to be deferred until that contingency occurred. He had consulted with many of his learned

  983
  friends, and he believed that his views would meet with considerable, if not entire, concurrence from the legal Members of the House. The remedy he ventured to propose might at first sight appear to be of a somewhat dangerous description. He thought that permanent and fixed Judges should sit in the Court of Appeal, as great inconvenience arose from a Judge sitting as a Primary Judge one day and as an Appellate Judge the next. An Appellate Judge ought to be an Appellate Judge for all purposes. He suggested that two members of the Bench in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of Justice should be taken from the Primary Court and transferred to the Appellate Court as permanent and fixed Judges. It would be necessary for Her Majesty's Judges to apply themselves to this work, not according to old precedents, but according to the necessities of the time. It would never do to allow our Courts of Nisi Prius to be less than six in number, but many cases which were now argued before three Judges sitting in banco might well be disposed of by one. This would secure a great saving of time and economy of judicial power, and it could not be said that this was a new principle, for it had always been adopted in the Chancery Courts. By this arrangement they might have two Divisions of the Appellate Court always sitting. He would also allow one Judge to take special cases on the Crown Paper. Three Judges might be allotted for sitting at Chambers and at the Central Criminal Court. By this means they would have sufficient numerical strength on the judicial bench and justice would be better administered than at present. He had reason to believe that the suggestions he had made pointed in the direction of a great reform. It might not be beneficial to the Bar, and it might find but little favour with the Bench; but it would meet with the approval of the suitors who were asking, and asking in vain, for justice. He hoped the Government would not shrink from dealing with the subject in the manner it deserved
  MR. FORSYTHmoved the adjournment of the debate, the subject raised by the hon. and learned Member being one of great importance, on which several Gentlemen intended speaking.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Forsyth.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERseconded the Motion.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked that the debate might be fixed to be resumed before the Members of the House who were members of the Bar went on Circuit.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the debate would be resumed at a Morning Sitting on Friday.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Friday, at Two of the clock.

BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL— [BILL 185.]
(Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
BISHOPRIC OF TRURO BILL— [BILL 185.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. DILLWYN,who had an Amendment on the Paper that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, that the object of this Bill could only be to turn the voluntary donations that had been given for the establishment of this Bishopric into a State endowment, and to create a high State official to be able to sit in Convocation, to possess certain legal powers, to hold a certain social position, and in his turn to have a seat in the House of Lords. He was not a Nonconformist; but he represented a large body of Nonconformists, and their objection to the Established Church was that they sincerely believed it interfered with and retarded the spiritual development of the country and the cordial co-operation of one class with another in society. In that House it retarded and prevented the passing of measures that would otherwise be conducive to the welfare of the community, and but for the religious difficulty the education of the country would be in a better condition than it was at present.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. TENNANTrose to call attention to the Report of the Commission upon "the working of the Factory and Workshop Acts;" and to move—
  "That, in any measure for the consolidation and amendment of the Factory and Workshop Acts, it is desirable, in the interests alike of employers and employed, that all trades and manufactures employing the same class of labour should be placed upon the same footing and under the same protective and restrictive provisions."
  The hon. Gentleman said, he was aware that in calling attention to this question he was introducing a dry and uninteresting subject. It was important, however, affecting as it did the manufacturing interests of this country.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (149).
Committee—Union of Benefices (147).
Committee—Report—Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation (120).
Report—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lerwick)* (122).
Third Reading—Small Testate Estates (Scotland)* (115); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Carnarvon, &c.)* (105); Slave Trade (135), and passed.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  (NOS. 64–147.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER,in moving that the House do now go into Committee on the Bill, reminded their Lordships that it had been referred to a Select Committee, by whom it had been returned with important alterations which he thought would make it more acceptable—especially in respect of the increased representation of the parishioners on the commission. There was also a new clause in lieu of Clause 19 (Site of any Church to be sold to be first offered to Town Council), which applied the machinery of Provisional Orders by the Secretary of State, to be confirmed by Act of Parliament, to the sale of the site of any church pulled down. He hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill, as amended, through Committee.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKappealed to the most rev. Prelate whether, at that advanced period of the Session, he could hope to carry through both Houses of Parliament this year a Bill of considerable importance in a form very different from that which it bore on the second reading.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 18 (Scheme may provide for erection of new Church or parsonage, removal of old Church, sale of site, &c.).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,:in answer to a noble Lord who objected to the clause on the ground that it involved the desecration of consecrated places, said, he had some slight responsibility in that matter. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord in his dislike to the sale

  939
  of those sites, on the ground that it was a blow to that reverence for the dead which still existed among us, and which it was desirable to preserve. In the Select Committee he had therefore made a Motion the effect of which would have been to prevent the sale of sites; but when they came to a division upon it the Committee was equally divided, and therefore by the technical rule the decision was against him. But in that division he found against him two noble Lords on his own side of the House who were both earnest and distinguished Churchmen. In the circumstances, knowing how the Committee was composed, it was evident to him that in some form or other the dominant feeling of their Lordships' House would be in favour of permitting, under whatever safeguards and restrictions, the sale of sites. As the law now stood, any one could introduce a Private Bill into Parliament to authorize the sale of the site of a church which had been pulled down. The Bill, as altered by the Select Committee, substituted the Provisional Order for the Private Bill; and as the clause provided that under the new system all such sales were subject to all the checks and safeguards formerly required—such as the consent of the Bishop and of the Home Secretary, he conceived that if such sales were to be permitted at all it would be impossible to surround them with greater precautions.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Site of Church pulled down may be sold under Provisional Order of Secretary of State, confirmed by Act of Parliament), agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Union of Benefices elsewhere than within any city or municipal borough).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that the Bill would extend the union of benefices from boroughs to counties, or to benefices one of which was situated within the borough, the other in the county. The Bishop must consent to a scheme for a union of county benefices, and there would be a commission, as in the case of a borough. On
  940
  that commission would sit two laymen selected by the vestries of the two benefices which were proposed to be united, and a third layman would be appointed by the chairman of the quarter sessions of the county. The majority on the commission would consist of laymen appointed by those who were interested in the matter. The evil which this Bill proposed to remedy was one very familiar to many of their Lordships. It was the case of a rich living outside a town, from which probably under the action of the old system of Poor Laws all cottages had been got rid of, and of a poor living inside the town with a large and poor population. The Bill proposed that in such a case the rich benefice should be combined with the contiguous benefice. He was of opinion that the guards proposed by the Bill against abuses were quite sufficient.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next.

METROPOLIS (WHITECHAPEL AND LIMEHOUSE) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL—(No. 120.)
(The Lord President).
METROPOLIS (WHITECHAPEL AND LIMEHOUSE) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL—(No. 120.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he did not interpose for the purpose of delay or of moving any Amendment in the Bill before them—he rejoiced to see it, and heartily approved the alterations introduced by the Secretary of State upon the scheme as propounded by the Metropolitan Board of Works. But as this was the first Bill of a long series which would come before the House for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes, he desired to make an observation on the provisions of it. First, he desired to press upon the promoters of the Bill the necessity of making provision for those who were ejected from their dwellings while the improvement was in progress—without first ascertaining whether there was sufficient accommodation for them in the neighbourhood. This was a great evil. Since he first brought the subject

  941
  to the attention of Parliament, 24 years ago, probably not less than 1,000,000 of persons had been turned out of their holdings in consequence of metropolitan improvements—he himself had witnessed the misery caused thereby. Now this might be avoided if they adopted the plan pursued in Glasgow. He was acquainted with that city before it was improved, and having recently visited it, he could say that it was improved in a manner and to an extent which he had witnessed in no other city. Well, that great municipality had made very extensive improvements, and in no case did they remove the people until they had ascertained that there was lodging room for them all within easy distances. Now, if they were to proceed on the principle of entirely new construction in every case (putting aside altogether the improvement and adaptation, when possible, of existing tenements—a system far better suited for convenience and economy to the poor) the erection of houses in blocks, ugly and inconvenient as they were, seemed to be unavoidable, so great was the value of the land in London. They were to rise to heights of even five stories. This, again, might be unavoidable; but then there should be on every storey everything that could be required; water should be laid on, and a dust-bin provided on every floor, for if these poor people had to go up and down these high flights of stairs for these accommodations, it amounted to real infliction and infinite toil. Now this by the Bill was provided for each block, but not for each storey. Health and cleanliness imperatively demanded an amendment to that effect. In the distribution and character of the holdings the Secretary of State had acted with much judgment and consideration for the poorer classes. His scheme stood thus:—Provision was made for 3,870 persons in 888 tenements, consisting of 121 single-room, 650 double-room, and 117 three-room tenements, each room being constructed for the accommodation of 2·5 persons. This was a mighty improvement on the plan of the Metropolitan Board, which was very objectionable. Some single rooms were unavoidable—indeed, they were necessary; but here a difficulty arose—if the numbers in each room were to be limited according to the proportions laid down in the scheme, the expense of living in
  942
  them would be far beyond the means of the poorer classes, and if they were not limited, we should have a repetition of all the moral and physical evils of overcrowded apartments. Therefore, unless they had single rooms at moderate rents poor families must be crowded into unhealthy lodgings. There was a very large population in this metropolis who lived from hand to mouth, and who earned wages averaging not more than from 12 s. to 14 s. a-week, and of course it was impossible for them to pay 5s. or 6s. a-week for their tenements. It was not easy to see their way out of these embarrassments. Doubtless the best had been done. But he must revert to what was really practicable, and which would tend to moderate, to a great extent, the troubles and losses of displacement. Long and ample notice should be given to the inhabitants; by ample he meant something beyond the mere legal notice—every one should be made acquainted with it. The demolitions should be gradual; not more than 500 persons should be removed at onetime, nor until it had been ascertained that adequate lodging was to be had in the neighbourhood. The modern systems of displacement in London had increased the evil that many wished to remove. The people had been driven into houses which already contained more than their due; and the suburbs had begun to be as crowded and filthy as the interior of London itself. With these precautions immense good might be done. The law would effect a revolution—a revolution as beneficial as ever was effected among 4,000,000 of people.
  THE DUKE OFRICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was glad to have the advice of one who was so well acquainted with this subject, and who was so greatly interested in providing dwellings of an improved character for the poorer classes as the noble Earl. All the topics which the noble Earl had brought forward should be carefully considered, and as far as they were practicable his suggestions should be adopted. If this measure were properly carried out, it would prove a considerable boon to the working classes.
  House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3aon Thursday next.

SLAVE TRADE BILL—(No. 135.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
SLAVE TRADE BILL—(No. 135.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read a third time, said, there seemed to have been a strange misconception last evening in the mind of the noble Earl who was recently Governor General of India (the Earl of Northbrook) in reference to this Bill. The noble Earl stated that the present Bill had not been referred to the Government in India, which was perfectly correct; but he also appeared to be under the impression that the substance of the measure had not been considered by the Indian Executive. The truth was that, substantially, the proposals contained in the Bill were suggested by the noble Earl himself, and the Papers which he proposed to lay on the Table of the House would show that this was the fact.
  On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

OWNERS OF LAND (IRELAND)—THE NEW "DOMESDAY BOOK."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in asking the Lord President, If the type of the Return of Owners of land in Ireland is still standing; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken to amend the inaccuracies in the Return? said, the names of persons had been inserted as owners though they were merely trustees of property; and in other cases persons had been defined as owners in fee though they merely held leases for 99 years, or were renewable, or were rent-charges. He thought that the definition of owners would lead to many mistakes. There were errors in the case of his own property. If the book was intended to be of any real value the numerous inaccuracies should be corrected, and if the type were not broken up that might be done without any very great cost. He
  944
  should be glad to hear that the type had not been broken up, and that the errors could be corrected.
  LORD SELBORNE,referring to the Returns of owners of land in England, said, he could hardly conceive a document of less value. It was full of mistakes, instances of which the noble and learned Lord pointed out.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in his own case he was put down as owning 600 acres of agricultural land in Staffordshire, and that he derived an income from it of £10,000 a-year, or £16 an acre rental, which was certainly the highest rental for such land that he had ever heard of.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas understood to say that in his case the Return was altogether erroneous; but it was not surprising that there should be inaccuracies, for there was the greatest difficulty in getting the Returns, and very often they had to be got as they best could from vestry clerks and other parish officers not of the most educated class.
  LORD BLACHFORDsaid, it was the same as regarded himself.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONregretted extremely that the Irish Return was inaccurate; but from what they had just heard it was not singular, as the same injustice had been perpetrated in regard to the Return for England as for Ireland. The type had not been broken up; but he understood that it would be inconvenient to correct the Blue Book as it now stood. It was now proposed, after some time had elapsed and all the errors had been brought to light, to print an addendum, showing the corrections which had been made.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that there could be no doubt that there were very great inaccuracies in the Return for Ireland, and he referred particularly to the Return for his own neighbourhood.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.