asked the Secretary of State for War, Why Chaplains to the Forces of the second and third class receive a less allowance for lodging, fuel, and lights than other officers of the same relative rank?

in reply, said, that the allowances to Chaplains to the Forces were regulated by a Special Warrant, dated the 5th of November, 1858. They received when serving abroad the same allowance for lodging, fuel, and light as was granted to Staff officers of the same relative rank. When serving at home and permitted to live out of barracks they were entitled to the rates as fixed at the date of the Warrant for regimental officers of the same relative rank. These allowances had always been maintained in subsequent Royal Warrants relating to Chaplains to the Forces.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the subject of the provision made by Government for the religious wants of Her Majesty's servants in India, professing the Roman Catholic religion, has been brought under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council, and of the Governor General in Council; and, whether any steps have been taken or are contemplated in this matter?

In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I have to say that after the Question put by him to me last year, the Secretary of State in Council addressed the Viceroy in Council upon this subject, and that it is at present under the consideration of the Government of India.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Banda and Kirwee Booty was estimated, two years after the sale of the capture property, in Her Majesty's Royal rant of 10th June 1864, at Rs. 7,000,000, exclusive of interest; whether the actual payments fall short of that sum by more than Rs. 1,500,000; how the discrepancy is accounted for; whether there are not prize claims still in dispute (besides the claims for the funded property of the Chief of Kirwee) for arrears of interest and other sums amounting to about £100,000; and, whether these disputed prize claims of the troops ought not to be referred (under the Act 3 and 4 Vic. c. 65, s. 22) for judicial settlement?

In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that it is true that the amount of the Banda and Kirwee Prize Fund fell short of the estimate by about the sum named. In reply to his second Question, I have to say that the discrepancy arose partly from an item having been entered twice in the account, partly from some articles, particularly jewels, having sold indifferently. In reply to his third Question, I have to say that the further prize claims alluded to can, I presume, only be the claims which have already been held invalid by the proper authorities in such matters, whose judgment is considered final.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Tichborne Case, Whether he is prepared to afford the Defendant such aid in bringing up witnesses in his defence as he would have been legally entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial after an examination before a magistrate instead of by the summary jurisdiction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and, if not now prepared to do so, whether, having regard to the fact that Petitions praying that such aid may be afforded, signed by about 100,000 persons, have been already presented to and read at the Table of this House, he will be good enough to point out what further evidence, if any, will be sufficient to satisfy him that unless such aid is afforded, there may be, in the opinion of a large portion of the public, a failure of justice in the pending trial?

Sir, I have considered the Question put to me, and have come to the conclusion that it is highly inexpedient that applications of this character should be dealt with in this House by way of Question and Answer between a Member of Parliament and a Minister of the Crown. The proper course would be to address the Department of the State which is competent to deal with these applications, and which would deal with them according to the special circumstances of each case.

said, that application upon the subject had been made in every possible form to the authorities to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, and desired to know, whether he was to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that that application should be renewed; and whether, if it were renewed, there would be any chance of success?

said, he had made inquiry upon the point, and, as he had been informed, no such application had been made.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the number of Officers' Commissions that are vacant in the Volunteer Service at the present time?

in reply, said, that the number of Volunteer commissions vacant up to 17th of March last would be found in the Return recently published.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that it is proposed to refer certain Railway Bills now before Parliament to a Joint Committee of both Houses, If he will take measures to secure to intending Petitioners the same opportunities of being heard before the Joint Committee that they would have had before the other House of Parliament, had no change of procedure been made during this Session in the mode of conducting the Private Business affecting those Bills?

in reply, said, that under the Resolutions adopted by both Houses of Parliament all Petitions against Railway Bills from any parties would be referred to the Joint Committee, and the time for petitioning, under these exceptional circumstances, would be very much longer than in ordinary years. The inquiry was to be a single one, and would be made and concluded by the Joint Committee, that being the essence of the recommendation of the Committee of last year with regard to all Bills involving the policy of amalgamation.

asked, whether it is proposed to give a locus stendi to local bodies?

said, that under the Resolutions all Petitions, no matter from what quarter they might proceed, would be referred to the Committee irrespective of the Rules regarding locus standi.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Railway Returns for the year 1872 are received at the Board of Trade; and when those Returns will be laid upon the Table of the House?

in reply, said, Railway Companies were bound, under the Act of 1871, to send in their Returns within a fortnight of their half-yearly meetings. There had been delay in several instances, and the companies had been warned by the Board of Trade that if continued the penalties would be enforced.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there has been any correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the subject of the Boundary between British North America and the territory purchased by the United States from Russia on the 30th of March, 1867, or any Commission sent out to examine the Boundary; and, whether the rights of navigation, &c. conceded to Great Britain by the Convention of 28th February, 1825, are still in force?

in reply, said, that Sir Edward Thornton was instructed in the autumn of last year to suggest to the Government of the United States the appointment of a Joint Commission to survey and lay down the Alaska Boundary. The American Government approved, and a Bill was brought into Congress for authorizing the President to take part in it. Pressure of business, however, prevented the Bill from being proceeded with, and the matter must therefore stand over for the next Session of Congress. With regard to the second Question, acting under the opinion of the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Ford, then Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, was informed on the 30th of December, 1867—

"That the United States were bound by the recitals from the Convention which were incorporated in the Treaty of Cession as far as the geographical limits of the ceded territory are concerned; but that as regards the other articles of the Convention, whereby certain points connected with the commerce, navigation, and fisheries of British and Russian subjects were settled for their reciprocal convenience, the obligations contracted by Russia towards Great Britain under these articles do not devolve upon the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Cession."

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that the Cape Merchants of London are placed in extreme uncertainty with reference to the Contract now upon the Table for conveying the Mails to the Cape of Good Hope, he will inform the House when he expects to submit that Contract to the judgment of Parliament; and, whether, under the pressing nature of the circumstances, he will name an early day for its discussion?

in reply, said, that in consequence of the dissatisfaction felt at the Cape, and by persons engaged in the trade to that colony, the Government had decided not to submit that contract to the judgment of the House. It was therefore at an end, and matters were remitted for the next three years to their original state. In answer to a Question placed on the Paper by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), Whether the Government are now paying the subsidy for conveying the mails to the Cape of Good Hope, and also for the conveyance of the mails to Zanzibar, in accordance with the contract of December 19, 1872? he might say that no payment had been made on account of the Cape contract now abandoned. The Zanzibar contract was entered into for a special purpose, the suppression of the slave trade. On account of that contract a payment had been made. The change he had already announced would render necessary a change in the Zanzibar contract. It would be made at once, and the contract as altered would be submitted to the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended that the provisions of subsection 1, Section 25 of the Irish Church. Act, relating to National Monuments, should be allowed to remain inoperative?

in reply, said, that it did not rest with Her Majesty's Government whether the provisions to which the hon. Member referred should remain inoperative or not, but with the Church Commissioners in Ireland. He had communicated with the Commissioners on the subject, and was assured that they were now engaged in making inquiries in order to ascertain what structures there might be within the powers of the Act of Parliament that ought to be maintained as national monuments; and as soon as those inquiries were concluded, further information would be given.

asked the Ender Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Italian Government has instituted any inquiry into the unprovoked attack made in the streets of Rome, on the 30th March last, on Mr. Vansittart, a British subject, or commenced any proceedings against the aggressors; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table the Correspondence between Mr. Vansittart and other English residents in Rome and Sir Augustus Paget, and the Despatches sent by Sir A. Paget to Her Majesty's Government, on this subject?

in reply, said, Sir Augustus Paget had reported from Rome that an inquiry had been instituted into the circumstances of the late attack upon Mr. Vansittart, a British subject, in the streets of Rome, and that the matter, according to Signor Visconti Venosta, was now under the cognizance of the judicial authorities. If the hon. and learned Member wished to move for the Papers in connection with this affair, there would be no objection to produce them.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he intends to introduce any measure this Session to regulate the office of Coroner in Ireland?

in reply, said, that as far as he could judge, the grievances under which the coroners laboured were not sufficiently urgent to warrant a Bill being introduced to meet their case and their case alone. As the hon. Member was aware, lie had last Session introduced a Bill dealing with the position of county authorities, and, among others, with the position of the coroners. That Bill, however, made very little progress, and if he again proposed it he could scarcely see any prospect of its becoming law this Session. He felt bound to add that, although the coroners, as a body, were favourable to that measure, it did not, he believed, go nearly as far as they desired.

in rising to explain the provisions of the three measures which he had placed upon the Paper—namely, a Bill to amend the Law respecting the Liability and Valuation of property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes; a Bill to provide for uniformity in the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes; and a Bill to amend the Law respecting the collection and making of Rates, and to provide for a Consolidated Rate, said:—Sir, I propose to confine myself to-night to moving for Leave to bring in these three Bills, and to postpone to a future day the Motion of which I have given Notice for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the desirability of altering the existing Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties. I will therefore at once proceed to explain the nature of the proposals I am about to make to the House. The first of the three Bills is a measure, the object of which is to repeal certain existing exemptions from rateability, so as to enlarge the area of rateable property throughout the country. The object of the second Bill is to make uniform for the purposes of both rating and taxation, the valuation and the assessment of property over the same area; and the object of the third Bill is to simplify the collection of rates by the adoption of the scheme for a consolidated rate, which has been already brought under the notice of the House by my right hon. Friend who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen). There can be no doubt of the great interest felt in, and the growing sense of the difficulty and importance of, the large complex question of which these Bills only form as it were a threshold and a part, for the interest of the House and of the public has been awakened to the question of local government and local taxation by a sense of the pressure of local rater When the shoe pinches, great reforms are sometimes at hand; and, as far as I am concerned, I do not regret any debate which has occurred in this House during the present or the preceding Session, although in the course of them exaggerated views may have been occasionally expressed; because I for one, as taking an interest in the reform of our system of local government, am glad that the attention of Parliament and of the country has been called to this important subject. But though that is the case, I trust the House will allow me, in no disputatious spirit, but for the sake of accuracy, which can do no man and no cause any harm, and for the sake of that common moderating of views and feelings on all sides which, I trust, may lead us to consider this subject, so as to bring it to a happy issue—I hope the House will allow me to refer to some of the financial aspects of the question. Now, as the House knows, there is something attractive and even unduly fascinating in figures when they become familiar. The mind likes to dwell on large amounts, such as millions, whether they refer to possessions, or even to the burdens which are supposed to weigh upon individuals or the community. Now, I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is not, in some sense, responsible for those large figures which have struck the imagination, and caused confused perceptions of this subject, for to him we owe the first Return of the total local expenditure of the country. The imaginative figures of that Return, which have taken possession of some minds, state that the total local expenditure of the country in 1871 was £29,948,030. In commencing to deal with the subject, it is my first duty to endeavour to take something away from the attractiveness of those figures, and to look into the details of the Return, in order to present the result with accuracy to the House. Well, £30,000,000, roughly speaking, was the total expenditure in 1871 upon objects which we have been accustomed to call local objects in this country; but the burden on the ratepayers of the country is something very different, and very much less. The other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) put the burden upon the public in the localities at £25,000,000 of money, and I take it he arrived at that result by the very legitimate process of eliminating from the account the amount of tolls, dues, and duties; for the House will understand that tolls, dues, and duties are neither taxes nor rates, because they are payments demanded not from the general community, but from persons choosing, of their own free will, and finding it worth their while, to avail themselves of some existing local advantages and conveniences, for which they are glad with the same free will to pay. But I shall have to reduce the sum very far below that total of £25,000,000, because when I turn from the column of total expenditure to the column of charge in respect of rates, I find the total reduced from very nearly£30,000,000 to £17,405,711. But my process of the disintegration of this amount, I am bound to say, is not yet finished, for with reference to the question, not merely of local burdens, but of local burdens which have no claim to Imperial relief, we have to go further, and. in going further I am reading no new lesson to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), for if it were necessary, I could cite extracts from his speeches in which he has drawn the distinction which I seek to draw. The distinction which I seek to draw, broadly speaking, is between remunerative and non-remunerative rates, or, to speak more exactly, I should say between directly remunerative and what you might call property-improvement rates—expenditure of a character which an enlightened owner of large property would undoubtedly take upon himself, if it were not otherwise provided—and that expenditure for more general purposes which, whether levied nationally or locally, in no inconsiderable degree undoubtedly increases the value of property in all localities throughout the country. Well, I have made that distinction, and the result at which I have arrived with regard to the year 1871 is this—I take what I call non-remunerative, or at least not directly remunerative rates—the poor rate, the county and rural police rates, the borough police rates, the metropolitan police rate, the City of London police rate; and I make the total—so far as it is levied by taxation, and is not derived from other sources—to be £11,426,087. On the other side I take the highway rate, the metropolitan local management rate, the metropolitan consolidated rates, the City of London ward rates, the towns' improvement rates, the local board rates —many of which really include the charge for gas and water, and are not strictly speaking rates at all, lighting and watching rates, sewers rates, and drainage rates, and so on; and I put all this down at a total of £5,979,624. Therefore, giving the figures in round numbers, I find that in 1871 the rates not directly remunerative amounted to £11,500,000, or a little less; while the directly remunerative or property-improvement rates, which can have no shadow of a claim to Imperial contribution, amounted to something less than £6,000,000. I have therefore reduced the great and fascinating figure of £30,000,000; first, to £17,500,000, and then, to £11,500,000, as far as this question is concerned; but I cannot even leave the £11,500,000 without deduction. A fallacy has obtained in the arguments of many hon. Gentlemen on this subject, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon has always escaped from it. The fallacy is as follows. Because a certain amount is levied on the real property of the country, it is assumed or argued in a somewhat vague way, that the injustice of the burden has some relationship and proportion between the annual value of the real property of the country and the income of the country, as derived from all sources. Now I wish to show what I venture to call the fallacy of this notion. The rates fall upon occupiers and owners, no matter for the moment in what proportion; but occupiers and owners, and those who depend upon occupiers and owners, are the people of the country, with very small exceptions, and therefore it is not correct to say that the gross value of the property of the country is £120,000,000, or what amount we like, and the income of the country £400,000,000, £500,000,000, or £600,000,000; and the injustice is in that proportion, because the income is possessed by the very persons who are taxed upon rateable property. Consequently, even the question as to the reduced sum of £11,500,000 is subject to the consideration as to how far the owners and occupiers of property are taxed in proportion to their ability, and in proportion to the advantage they derive from the expenditure of these local rates. All political economists, will, I think, bear me out in the assertion, that there is, perhaps, no subject more difficult upon which to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion than the real, exact, and ultimate incidence of rates and taxes; but this I will venture to say—and I think no one will deny it—that however partial the incidences on persons of a tax or a rate may appear to be, yet its tendency, if you give it time, is to diffuse itself, and that, therefore, the burden of £11,500,000 is first of all to be diminished in a matter of argument with reference to the consideration, how far it may or may not be fairly distributed amongst those who, as practically constituting the whole community, should bear it; and secondly, with reference to that intricate problem of political economy, what is the ultimate and the accurate and exact incidence of any rate or tax? But, Sir, I have made these remarks not for the sake of, or with the slightest desire to attenuate in any hon. Member's mind the interest and importance of this subject, because I venture to say that no man can attach a greater importance to it than I do myself; and because I congratulate myself and I congratulate all those who feel an interest in the subject, on the fact of the discussions which have taken place, and on the fact that some sense of the burden has led the minds of hon. Members of this House to open themselves on a question which I believe to be of the greatest interest and importance to the future of this country, whether in reference to the Imperial Government or to local government itself. The subject being not only of great interest and importance, but of very great complexity and dimensions, I presume only to touch the very fringe of the question to-night, and, therefore, I propose only to introduce to the House some measures having for their object the practical reform of the existing system of local taxation. Next, I shall have to ask the House to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the parish, union, and county boundaries, and the object of that inquiry will be to prepare the way for the very much greater and more important and difficult branch of the question—namely, the subject of local government itself. When we have come to the question of local government itself, the House knows that in the next place—and, I might almost say, contemporaneously with that inquiry—we must address ourselves to the question which is uppermost in men's minds—the question of the true relations for the future between Imperial and local government, and the nature and the amount of contributions which might properly be made, and the conditions under which they ought to be made out of the Imperial revenue in aid and in relief of local burdens. The House, I am sure, therefore, will not differ from me when I say that we must address ourselves to the whole of this question by steps and by degrees. I know very well that this will require patience, if not some confidence in us, on the part of the House. I would say, as a justification for our appeal to the patience, and to some extent to the confidence, of the House, that there is really no alternative; that no party occupying the position of a Government could deal with the question in any other way; and that no persons—and here I would appeal with confidence to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon—feeling any responsibility on this subject and being bound themselves not merely to bring it before the attention of the public and of Parliament, but to propose its solution, could pretend or presume to approach it except gradually and by degrees. I would adduce this further reason in favour of that mode of proceeding—that if we really ask ourselves honestly the condition of this question as a whole in our own minds, as well as in the mind of the public, we are conscious that we want time for it to grow; we know that we want it to be brought gradually before the public. We want to know what the public outside think, as well as what we ourselves have begun to think; and as for myself, though I probably have given as much daily close attention to the subject for the last 12 months as any man, I should not be prepared, and I should be unwilling to address myself to the solution of the great and ulterior questions to which I have referred until I had first of all taken these preliminary steps to which I am now inviting the attention and acquiescence of the House. My right hon. Friend the First Minister the other night indicated the order of proceeding. I move to-night for the introduction of three Bills, and I hope to move on the next occasion, possibly on Thursday next, for the Committee of which I have given Notice. When that Committee shall have reported, I shall be in a position, and the Government will be in a position, to consider what further measures it will be necessary to adopt in order to complete the system of the local organization of the country with respect to those burdens. Now, Sir, in considering the subject of local taxation, there are three matters which we have to bear in mind. We have to think first of the property which ought to be subject to rates, and made liable to rateability; we have to think, in the next place, of how this property ought to be valued; and, in the third place, we may address ourselves as a question of practical convenience to the easiest and simplest method of collecting the rates. Now, Sir, what property ought to be rated? The House knows that our law is based upon the statute of Elizabeth. The statute of Elizabeth is the first Act of Parliament by virtue of which those properties are defined which are the subject-matter of rates. That Act has been somewhat modified by subsequent legislation, and its meaning has been made clear by the interpretations from time to time of Courts of Law; but the principle—if I may so say—of the Act of Elizabeth was this—that property to be rated should be locally situated in the parish in which it was to be rated, and that it should be tangible and visible property. That principle of the Act excluded incorporeal hereditaments, such as rights of shooting, fishing, and the franchise, and all other such rights, when severed from the occupation of the soil; because the House must understand that rights of that kind when enjoyed together with the occupation of the soil added to the value of the occupation, and therefore came to be rated when the annual value of real and tangible property had to be rated and assessed. Well, but besides the exclusion of incorporeal hereditaments, certain corporeal hereditaments of real property came to be excluded by the words of the Act of Elizabeth and by the interpretation placed upon those words by the Courts of Law. The Act of Elizabeth mentioned coal mines only, and therefore ail other mines—all metalliferous mines—have been excluded from the rates, with this exception—that where the owner has been paid not by a rent, but by a portion of the produce, by a kind of fiction in the Courts of Law he has been held to be in occupation of a portion of the mine, and has been rated in respect thereof, Again, in the Act of Elizabeth, saleable underwood is mentioned only, and therefore by the interpretation of the law, woods and plantations which are not underwood have been excluded from rateability. The Crown, too, is not mentioned in the Act, and as hon. Members are aware, since no Act can bind the Crown in which the Crown is not mentioned, all Crown property—a phrase to which the Courts have given a very large interpretation—has practically been exempted from rates. Besides these exemptions based upon interpretations of the Act of Elizabeth, there are exemptions founded upon subsequent legislation. The House knows that churches and chapels have been exempted from rateability by an Act of William IV., and, although Sunday schools and ragged schools have been—I will not say exempted, yet the parish in which they are located has been enabled, at its own cost, to exempt them by Act of Parliament—and literary and scientific institutions have also been exempted by statute. Now, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty dealt with this subject in his Bill of two years ago. He dealt with it in a way complete, and in a very logical method. He abolished all the exemptions, he made all hereditaments—corporeal and incorporeal—the subject-matter of rates, and in his Bill He proposed to assign the house tax in relief of the coal bin-dens, which were occasioned by imposition of rates. What I have to do now is to explain to the House how far the present proposal of the Government is identical, and how far and in what respect it differs from their former proposal. We have not endeavoured to frame a measure upon the consideration that it should have the advantage and the merit of being so logical and complete as the measure which we proposed two years ago. There is no doubt that the perfection of the logic and the completeness of a measure is a great recommendation; but we have thought from criticisms which that measure received, that perhaps we should better meet the general orders and wishes of the House by taking a less ambitious course. We have, therefore, in order to meet those views, and secondly in order to make our meaning, and to make the effect of our proposed legislation so clear that no one can by possibility misunderstand it —we have inverted the form of proceeding, and we have adopted the less philosophical method than that adopted two years ago of indicating one by one the subject-matters to which we think it, on the whole, advisable to extend the law of rateability, so that, at least, our present proceeding will have the advantage in the eyes of the House of making perfectly clear what additions we propose to make to the liability of owners of property of any kind. In the first place, we propose—and I am sure the House will be prepared for this announcement—to rate all mines besides coal mines. The Bill, as it is now drawn, simply includes them in the liability to rating. I know that various questions will be raised as to the method by which we should arrive at a valuation of mines for rating purposes, and I have not seen my way to doing more than saying that the Act of Elizabeth shall extend from coal mines to all other mines. We come next to woods and plantations other than saleable underwood, and we propose to make them liable also. We have not again inserted in our Bill any proposed method of valuation. I might have fallen back on the method of the Scotch Act. Scotland is a wood-growing country; the Scotch people are generally supposed to understand business, public or private, and therefore I might have done what I felt disposed at one time to do. I might have fallen back on the precedent of the Scotch Act, and defined in my Bill the method of valuation so as to determine the rateability of plantations. On the whole, however, I thought, and the Government thought, it would be better to place the Bill before the House simply as a measure proposing to introduce a rateability where rateability does not now exist. Then we propose to retain the statutory exemption for churches and chapels, and that is the only statutory total exemption from rateability that we propose to retain. The House will not forget that we are intending to submit Government property to rateability; and, therefore, the question what property ought to be rated and what property ought to be exempted is not exactly the same as it was when it was not proposed to subject Government property to rateability. We proposed, therefore, to repeal the Act which enables Sunday schools and ragged schools to escape from their contribution to the rates of the parish in which they are situated. There are also public Acts, and Local, Personal, and Private Acts, which hardly, correctly speaking, exempt property from rateability, but which sometimes exempt the occupiers from payment of the rate, throwing it on the parish—I will not undertake to say my recollection is accurate, but, probably, the Foundling Hospital is in that position—or, which reduces, fixes, and minimizes the value on which certain properties are in future to be rated. Now, on the first blush of the question, and taking what I may call an abstract and philosophical view, one would say undoubtedly, that all these provisions, Public or Private, should be repealed. But, nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion, and my Colleagues have shared in it—on looking at all those Acts, their number, the length of time during which they have operated, considering how much property has been bought, sold, and inherited with reference to these conditions, and how far these partial exemptions may fairly be regarded as statutory—they have come to the conclusion not to interfere with these cases, and to leave these partial exemptions just as they stand under existing legislation. I come lastly to the question of the rateability of Government property. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) proposed to repeal the exemption which Government property has enjoyed, and we now continue that proposal; but I have to explain to the House—and I must do it as carefully as I can—the method in which we mean to deal with that subject. It is not possible to deal with it simply by repealing the exemptions; at least, if it is possible; it is not advisable; and I think the House itself will hardly treat the question, simply by repealing the exemption of Government property, and leaving the question of its rateable value to be determined by the tribunals of the various localities in which it is situated. Let us consider for a moment the peculiar character and conditions of Government property with reference to this subject. I will take four cases. First, there is the case of a building appropriated, in town or country, to the use of the Post Office, or the Inland Revenue, and other small properties of that kind employed for the purposes of the State. These, I think, may very easily be dealt with on ordinary principles, and be fairly and safely referred to the local assessment committees and and local judicial tribunals to decide. But I next come to a totally different class of case. I will take the Parks. The Parks of this metropolis, with some minor exceptions which I need not mention, have never been the subject-matter of rates, and they have never been withdrawn from rateability to which they had previously been subject; so that parishes have grown up around these Parks with a perfect knowledge of that condition relating to them. Further, these Parks are not properties which create either wealth or poverty. The kind of property which is logically the subject-matter of rates is that which. creates wealth, and which, at the same time, unfortunately, as far as our experience goes, inevitably creates poverty as well. That is to say, it employs labour to a large extent. In the third place, the Parks of London are maintained at a very considerable cost to the general taxpayer, no doubt for the convenience and pleasure of the general taxpayer when he wishes, but, perhaps, more for the convenience and pleasure of the residents of London themselves. And further, it is within the knowledge of the House, that the value of the property immediately adjoining the Parks is not diminished by their unrateability, but very largely increased by the amenity they give to that part of the town. I do not think, therefore, the House will consent to the Parks being taxed, unless it is placed in the possession of some kind of estimate, however rough, of the amount which we should have to call upon it to pay out of the general taxation of the country, and at this moment I can afford no such information —the House will not consent, simply on the ground of general principle, to say that the Parks, like other Government property, should be subjected to rates, and leave it to the local tribunals to ascertain their value and assess them. Then I come to fortifications, which are often constructed, as the nature of the case makes evident, on hill-sides. Those hills may feed sheep; but that is all they are likely to do. An enormous sum, however, was spent in converting those hill-sides or cliffs into fortifications. Undoubtedly, if we leave the valuation of such property to a local tribunal, there will be considerable risk that it may, in the interest of the locality, value the fortifications with reference to the amount of capital expended on that barren land. That would be very un- sound, because, however useful they may be for the defence of the country, they have no mercantile or money, and therefore, properly speaking, no rateable value. It has come to my knowledge that when the late Sir George Cornwall Lewis in 1859 was contemplating a measure of this description, he obtained a rough estimate of the value of War-Office property. I have not been able to get that estimate, but the gross amount was something like £17,000,000, the amount of capital, probably expended upon them, a basis very unsound in my view, for valuation. I, therefore, put it to the House whether, in regard to property of this kind, it should be left to local authorities to value it on some arbitrary plan in reference to the amount expended on it? I come now to a totally different class of Government property—I mean the manufacturing departments of the Government, the dockyards and arsenals, on which I think rates have a very fair claim. Now, I am sure the House will agree With me that everything which produces wealth or property produces pauperism likewise, and therefore ought to bear its share of taxation—and the dockyards and arsenals belong to this class, but even here I think the House will agree that it should not be left to be valued according to ordinary and local measures of valuation. If we had a shipyard used, like a firm, for the purpose of producing a balance-sheet, with something on the profit side of the account, we might fairly value our premises according to the ordinary valuation of the assessment committees. But a Government dockyard is not in that position. No private firm could undertake to pay the rent that ought to be paid for a Government dockyard, doing no more business than a Government does, because, a dockyard as an arsenal exists not only for the ordinary purposes of manufacture and repairs during time of peace, but for the extraordinary exigencies of a time of war. Thence it appears to me, and I hope also to the House, that it is wiser not simply to say that Government property shall be subject to rateability, and leave its valuation to local tribunals, but to retain some hold of that question ourselves, and to settle it in a different method. We, therefore, propose in the first place, to repeal the existing exemptions of Government property from rateability; but it is also proposed that these exemptions shall take effect when the value for the purposes of rating has been ascertained; and I have also a proposal to make with respect to the method of valuation. What I have to propose is, that the Government, availing itself of whatever assistance it may deem necessary, and having caused to be enumerated the properties properly subjected to rates, and those which are not, shall submit to the House a scheme for valuation, which will be brought forward at the beginning of next Session, and which will show the valuation of these properties which should be subject to rateability. That scheme or schemes will, like Provisional Orders, require confirmation by Act of Parliament, and any scheme to which local objection may be made may be discussed before a Select Committee of the House. I can not help thinking that the House will agree with me that this is a proposal which the complications and difficulties of the subject make reasonable, and that it is a proposal just both to the localities which have to be relieved, and the taxpayers who have to pay for that relief. I come, in the next place, passing from the first Bill, to the second, which deals with measures of valuation and assessment. Much has been done by the legislation of recent years to secure accuracy and uniformity of assessment. The Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), passed in 1862, and known as the Unions Assessment Act, is one of great value, and one which reflects great credit on the Poor Law Department as well as upon my right hon. Friend himself. By that Act is secured what was very much wanted at the time, uniformity of valuation and uniformity of deductions, for the purpose of getting at the gross rateable value within unions, and the result of the Act has been eminently successful in procuring uniformity of valuation. But the Act was of course not complete, for his right hon. Friend could not, he believed, have well gone farther at the time than he had done, and there was accordingly a deficiency in the measure. The county rate, as the House knows, is levied by the valuation which the Justices make, and the valuation of the union assessment committees does not bind the county; so there is not uniformity between unions and parishes and different unions, and, above all, the Act does not secure a valuation which may be accepted as the basis not only of rates, but of taxation also. The variation in valuation as distinguished from assessment is not comparatively great, but I think the House will be surprised to hear how very great and how very numerous and complicated are the differences in arriving at the net or rateable value of property. You first value the property gross, and then you make those reductions which are necessary to obtain the net value. From a Return issued in 1866, I find that, at that time, as to land without buildings there were 37 different scales in the different unions of the country, and that the deductions varied from nothing—if that can be called a deduction—to 24 per cent. I find, with regard to land with buildings there were 56 different scales, and deduction from 1½ to 50 per cent. As to the houses above £5 and under £8, there were 74 different scales, and deductions from 2 to 50 per cent. With houses from £8 to £15 there were 48 scales, with deductions from 5 to 36 per cent; and with houses from £15 and upwards there were 53 scales, with deductions varying from 5 to 33 per cent. As to mills there were 56 scales, with deductions from 10 to 50 per cent; and with regard to manufactories there were 41 scales, with deductions from 5 to 50 per cent. Now, what is desirable must be at once evident to the House. It is desirable that we should have uniformity of gross valuation, and uniformity of deduction for the purpose of arriving at the net or rateable value not only as between every parish and union in the county, but as between the various counties, in order that we may have one basis of valuation for taxes such as the income tax, the house duty, as well as for rates. This desideratum, which is no novelty, and not an invention of mine, has been the subject of two Bills before the House already—one in 1867, by the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt); and another in 1869, by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. Now the Bill which I propose is founded upon those two measures. We propose to secure accuracy and uniformity of valuation by introducing the surveyor of taxes to propound the valuation, and to deal with it in the interests of the Inland Revenue, and we propose to secure uniformity of deduction by inserting certain maximum deductions in the Bill which, from our experience of the Metropolis Valuation Act, we think will be generally accepted as the general deductions to be made. We further propose that the valuation shall be quinquennial, and that there shall be an appeal; but at the same time we think it desirable that the existing system of appeal first against the valuation, and then against the rate founded upon it, shall not be adopted, as involving a waste of time and money. [An hon. MEMBER: To whom, then, will the appeal lie?] In the first place, to all the Justices; but there must be an alternative, and I am not sure how the matter may be ultimately settled. But the first appeal will be to the Quarter Sessions, or to a Committee of the Sessions. I might, perhaps, make my explanation more clear, if I were to state categorically, in what respect the present proposals differ from those which are contained in the Bill of the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, to which I have already referred. That Bill retained the present assessment committees and my Bill does the same. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman created a County Board—which was to expire when its functions were performed—to fix the scale of deductions within the limits of the Bill. I make no such proposal, and I believe, from experience, it will be found that the maximum scale proposed will be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, in the third place, that the valuation should be conclusive, both for Government and local purposes, and my proposal is identical; but while the right hon. Gentleman's Bill provided that the valuation should be revised every three years, my proposal is that the revision shall be quinquennial. Again, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint a surveyor of taxes, with a right of appeal, and in the present Bill a similar proposition is contained; but the right of appeal which the right hon. Gentleman would give to the County Court Judge, it is now proposed to give to Quarter Sessions. [Mr. HUNT said, he gave a right of appeal to the County Court Judge, or to a Committee of Sessions.] I would, in the next place, observe that there has been somewhat of a scandal with regard to the uncertainty with which great mansions have been valued, although I am bound to say that the result of the Unions Assessment Act has been to diminish that scandal. It is not unnatural that there should be some sense of grievance at what I may term, at least, an inaccuracy of valuation. The ordinary principle of valuation adopted, whether legally or not I cannot say, is to test the value of property by its lettable value. But when the property consists of a mansion, which is the ornament of an estate and which is never let, there is no means of ascertaining its lettable value; and the owners of such properties have escaped on terms which they themselves scarcely regard as creditable or equitable against themselves. It is not an easy matter to define value when the market value cannot be ascertained; but I have endeavoured, in response to the general feeling of the House, in which I myself share, to draw up a clause to secure the fair valuation of such property as I have just referred to. I will not dwell upon the point at the present moment, and it will be best for the House to well consider it when it is before them; but I will merely state the clause proposes to impose upon the rating authority, and upon the judicial authority which may have to decide between the rating authority and the appellant owner of the property rated, the duty of determining the rateable value of a house, the letting value of which cannot be ascertained, because it is not liable under ordinary circumstances to be let. If the House will allow me I wish to state that I put this clause before them for discussion and in no absolute spirit, for I am fully aware of the difficulty of the subject; but at the same time I feel that there is a general sense that if possible some form of words shall be arrived at which will make it palpable to the public that the owners of houses of the peculiar character I have pointed out are on the whole bearing their full share of local burdens. [An hon. MEMBER: Do the proprietors of mines and woods get the benefit of the maximum deductions?] I am asked whether the maximum of deductions to which I have referred will apply to mines and woods. Certainly they will, and to all other classes of property, unless we find reason in passing this Bill through Committee, to make other and more specific methods of dealing with them. I now come to the third Bill, as to which I need detain the House but a very short time. The object of the third Bill is to enable the making of a consolidated rate. Any man who pays rates—and where is the man in this House who does not—has an experience not altogether agreeable, not only as to their amount, but as to their unintelligibility. I think it advisable that they should be intelligible, and I do not know a better way of making them intelligible than by providing that all rating authorities should make their demands upon a parochial authority, who should levy a consolidated rate, stating in the demand note the proportions of that rate for each particular subject of demand, and levying that rate by convenient, probably quarterly, instalments. The object of that proposal is to make the rate intelligible to everybody. That appears to be a very simple object, but I think it one of very considerable importance, and it is a proposal based upon the Reports of two Committees of this House. The first is the Report of the Select Committee upon Poor Rate Assessments, which sat in 1868, and was presided over by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ayrton). In that Report I find a recommendation to the effect, that every local authority entitled to raise any money by means of local rates shall make a requisition upon the overseers, or other proper officer, for the whole amount required, as far as the same can be estimated for a period of one year, that the requisition shall be delivered to the overseer, or such other officer, a reasonable time before the commencement of the year, so as to enable him to comply with the terms of such requisition; and that such overseer shall, on receipt of such requisitions, make one consolidated rate sufficient to satisfy all such requisitions. The other was the Committee on Local Taxation which sat in 1870, and was presided over by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen); and they recommended that on a rate being made, a demand note should be left with every ratepayer, stating the amount of the requisition, the rate in the pound for each purpose, the period for which the rate is made, the rateable value of the premises, the amount of rate, and the date for payment of each instalment. We adhere to their proposals with two exceptions; we do not propose to create parochial councils for any purpose, and in fact the Public Health Act of last Session will have prepared hon. Members for the announcement. We propose to leave the parochial collection of rates to the overseers. In the next place, there is a special partial exemption from rates which land as distinct from houses enjoys in sanitary districts to the extent of three-fourths of the sanitary rates. There can be no doubt that if you have an area of local taxation perfectly hornogeneous in its character, as a thoroughly urban population, there will be very great convenience as well as justice and great simplicity in having all rates based upon a full valuation; but, however desirable that may be, it is not possible as things are. For instance, I suppose the greater proportion of municipal boroughs in this country consist to some extent of land which is not covered with houses, and which does not derive equal benefit from the expenditure on sewers, the supply of gas and water, or the paving of streets as that part of the borough which is more thickly populated. But we have also to deal with urban sanitary authorities of all kinds, with local government boards, and local government districts, and I speak practically and from an administrative point of view when I say that in such a matter you could not possibly have that uniformity which is desirable, with any justice to that portion of the district which is not already covered with houses. Hon. Members know that in the Public Health Act of last year, I gave urban powers under certain circumstances to rural authorities. Where you have a village or some little industrial community not large enough to be constituted an urban authority in itself, we took power to give the rural sanitary authority urban powers as regards their expenditure on such portions of their district. Now we have no wish, in any degree, to appear to restrict or take away those powers, as we should have to do in fixing an uniform valuation, and, therefore, it would be extremely unfair to have the same valuation in all cases. I hope I have now, though only in dry outline, afforded sufficient information to induce the House to give me leave to introduce these Bills, and that I have not wearied them in doing so. I hope at the earliest possible period to go into the larger and in one sense more interesting and important question of local government in its relation to the Imperial Government, and to the hold which the Imperial Government ought to have upon it. When I come to that subject, I shall only have to ask the House to enable me to prepare the way to propose measures on a future occasion. For the present, all that I have done is to address myself to the first, smallest, and simplest branch of the subject; but I trust that I have sufficiently satisfied the House to give me leave to introduce these Bills, and that I have succeeded in so presenting the question, that the House will feel that our object and endeavour have been to present to it proposals fair, practical, and moderate; and tending, as we hope they will, to an issue in which we may all join. I move for leave to bring in the first of the Bills of which I have given Notice.

said, he rose for the purpose of making a few general remarks on the statement of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. To many portions of the scheme of the Government Local Taxation, Reformers would, no doubt, give their adhesion; but he was bound to say, that instead of bringing forward the comprehensive measure promised to the House four years ago, the Government were going to deal with the question in a piecemeal manner; and instead of giving the promised relief, the Government were about to aggravate the grievance complained of. Many of the proposals embodied in the Bills would be advantageous, such as those relating to the consolidation, the collec- tion, and the auditing of rates, and to the uniform valuation; but the cardinal grievance of which he complained would remain unredressed, as no remedy whatever was provided for the excessive taxation which constituted the grievance. Only the other evening the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government said the essence of the Resolution passed last year was relief to local burdens. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman however, how that relief was to be applied. It was useless to dangle before the eyes of hon. Members visionary and shadowy schemes of relief. Something real, practical, and tangible was required, and the relief ought not to be contingent or prospective. In what way would these Bills give the relief that was required? He could not help thinking that by including a description of real property which at present was exempted from taxation, the right hon. Gentleman was aggravating the grievance complained of. By the Act of Elizabeth certain descriptions of real property were exempted, but under that statute all personal property was liable to rating. Now, he thought it very hard that while the Government were spreading their net so as to include a small proportion of real property which was now exempt, all personal property would continue exempt. That would intensify the grievance, and, in fact, the Government were simply going to adjust the chains of the local taxpayers in order to make them more secure. His right hon. Friend had truly said he (Sir Massey Lopes) had never complained of the whole of the large amount of rates which was collected in this country. He had always confined his grievance to the £11,500,000 to which his right hon. Friend referred. What he wanted was, not only a consolidation, but also a classification of rates, and an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining for what purposes, local or national, they were raised. That was almost the foundation of what was required in order to get anything like a solution of this difficult problem. Local rates were of two kinds—namely, those levied for local and those levied for national purposes. If a town wished for its own comfort and convenience to tax itself voluntarily, the cost ought to fall on the town, and not on the nation. This, he maintained, was not taxation in the real sense of the word, for to a certain extent such improvements were in the nature of investments. They were in fact reproductive, and were voluntarily incurred. There was a great distinction between such rates and those raised for national purposes, over which the local ratepayers had no control whatever. That was the crucial test, and the extent and degree to which the nation or the Government exercised control over the rate, and to that extent only, was the locality justified in asking for relief from the nation for the purpose of carrying out the object in view. He complained that the First Lord of the Treasury, the President of the Local Government Board, and the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken up a false issue in this matter, and endeavoured to evade the real question. The question raised in that House was the relative taxation between the different descriptions of property—real and personal; but the right hon. Gentleman had narrowed the issue and had discussed the question as though it were one as to the relative taxation of the same descriptions of property—namely, land and houses. He (Sir Massey Lopes) had been much misrepresented and misapprehended with regard to what he asked; but he had never asked for the local rating of personal property. It might be just to rate stock in trade, but he had never asked for it, feeling it to be impracticable of accomplishment. From local rates locally administered they had no claim for exemption, nor for what were termed hereditary burdens; but the grievance which he had endeavoured to urge was with reference to those new impositions which had been continually imposed in recent years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted the other night that during the four years he had been in office he had remitted,£9,000,000 of Imperial taxation, but he (Sir Massey Lopes) was prepared to prove that during that time he had imposed burdens on the local taxpayers on one description of property fully half that sum —namely, £4,500,000 of taxation. That was the injustice of which he complained. He therefore asked for additional subventions for national purposes as the best, and easiest, and fairest way of meeting those rates which were levied for national purposes. It was not asking the House to adopt a new principle, because for years past the Imperial Ex- chequer had contributed, not one-fourth as was supposed, but only one-fifth of the expense of the police; neither did he ask for an indefinite sum to be taken from the Consolidated Fund, but that relief should be given for definite objects of an Imperial character. He asked, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for equality between the different classes of the community in respect of their aggregate contributions to general burdens. The proposed legislation was not satisfactory, and it was, in fact, deluding the country with false expectations and visionary schemes. The Resolution which the House agreed to last year was a very simple one—namely, that no legislation would be satisfactory that did not give relief for certain definite objects. Government not only refused to carry out this solemn decision of the House, but were pursuing a course expressly condemned by that Resolution when they proposed to impose on certain real property, hitherto exempt, exceptional taxation for national objects.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in introducing his measures, had departed from the usual course of tracing his subject, and then arriving, by an exhaustive process, to the measures he was about to submit, he would endeavour to supply the information. The subject as to the incidence of local burdens was one of a somewhat ancient date, for in 1868 the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) moved a Resolution upon the subject. In 1869 the Government mentioned the subject in the Queen's Speech in these words — "A measure will be brought under your notice for the relief of some classes of occupiers from hardships in respect of rating, which appoar to be capable of remedy." In that year the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, and on that occasion the Prime Minister said—"I think it would be the duty of the Government to make such proposals as they might think called for, with regard to a matter standing in the very front rank of duties devolving on a Government," and the present First Lord of the Admiralty said—"That though he might take a biassed view of it, his constituents were as much, if not more than any other class, interested in a diminution of local taxation." In 1870 the right hon. Gentleman moved for the appointment of a Select Committee for a general inquiry into the subject, though in the Queen's Speech they were told—"That Bills had been prepared for extending the incidence of rating, and for placing the collection of the large sums locally raised for various purposes on a simple and uniform footing." In 1871 the Legislature was again invited in the Queen's Speech to apply itself to the readjustment of local burdens. The present First Lord of the Admiralty introduced a Bill, but it was never discussed. It was now said that this measure was received with partial satisfaction, but it fell still-born, and its author had never given the House an opportunity of considering it. The Government instituted private inquiries during the Recess, and it was expected that when Parliament again met the Local Government Board would be ready with a measure. The Session of 1872 was, however, a perfect blank. The topic was not alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, and there was no Bill except in embryo. That was too much for the patience of the House, and his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes) having called attention to this grievous omission, the result was that memorable majority by which the Government were defeated. The Prime Minister thereupon promised the House a great and comprehensive measure, but where was it? Why, instead of redeeming their promise they had found it more discreet and prudent to deal with the subject in detail, doubtless under the idea that by so doing they would obtain more support from the different sections in the House than would be the case if it were dealt with in one Bill. There was, perhaps, not much to which exception could be taken, so far as the scope of these Bills was concerned; but the proposal with regard to assession of taxes would not meet with the approval of the local authorities. It was the most objectionable feature of the measure, and savoured of centralization of the most objectionable character. Such a proposition would meet with his decided opposition. He further believed it was impossible to establish any rule with regard to a maximum rate for deductions. The Government, in fact, were not dealing with the matter in a fair, impartial, and just manner. Any fair settlement, even if it were of a partial description, should receive his support, but he was certain that the country would be disappointed with the meagre measures now proposed.

said, that but for the opposition of the Government to deal with the question piecemeal, these Bills might have been introduced long ago, for they merely embodied some of the provisions of three Bills, which had been for some years before the country. The first Bill was addressed to the property to be rated. It specially exempted certain property which was already exempted by local and other Bills, such as canal property, and it removed the existing exemption from property in mines and trees and certain descriptions of Crown property. The second Bill, relating to valuation, was very little wanted in his own county (Wiltshire), and probably elsewhere. Now, at the end of three years, after the country had been waiting for some general measure dealing with the subject in its entirety, and giving relief to local taxation from the general funds, all that they had presented to them was those three meagre Bills, the nature of which he thought would disappoint the House, and at the same time would meet the general disapproval of the country. As he understood the Government proposition, it was that the bodies who were to make the local improvement rate, the county rate, the district rate, the sanitary rate, and so on, were to send in particulars to the overseers. It seemed to him, however, that it would be better, instead of throwing additional duties upon the overseers, to give the Boards of Guardians the power of appointing a person to levy and collect the rates. He could not, moreover, understand why the Government should not have taken a more comprehensive view of the subject, and have provided that the estimates of requirements should be sent to the unions instead. As regarded the rateability of property, too, he thought it was greatly to be regretted that a more comprehensive view had not been taken—such a view, for instance, as had been taken by another Department of the Government in the General Valuation (Ireland) Bill. Unless the whole subject were dealt with in a broader way, it would be much better that the Government should withdraw these measures, and re-introduce them in an amended form next Session.

said, that he did not share the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Bills, for he maintained that local taxation must be placed on one equitable basis for the whole country. He especially approved of the Bills because they were intended to deal with an existing difficulty of great importance. In North Yorkshire alone there was a large ironstone district producing to the owners a rental of £120,000 to £150,000 a-year, which remained untouched so far as being, rated to the poor was concerned. In Cornwall, in Wales, and other mining districts, property of that kind escaped local taxation. But the Bills would grapple with cases of this description, and would, he trusted, pave the way for a more equitable distribution of our local rating. He also thought the Government had adopted a wise course in trying to settle that principle before proposing to assist the rates by transferring any of them to the Consolidated Fund. He owned, however, to feeling some disappointment at finding that instructions had not been given in the Bill as to how or on what principle the rating of mines was to be conducted.

said, he had no objection to these Bills, if they only paved the way to the settlement suggested by the hon. Member who had just spoken; he feared, however, that their tendency was rather to block it. If the Bill were permitted to pass unchallenged by hon. Members on that side of the House, it might be supposed that they acquiesced in the principle involved in it, and accepted it as a solution of the great question of local taxation; whereas, it could in no way be considered by them as a settlement. What they contended for at that side of the House was, that all property, real and personal, should be subject to the burden of local taxation. Why should persons be exempted who held property quite as fixed, as secure, and as valuable as real property? Take, for instance, the case of the mortgagee. His principal money was amply secured, and his interest was paid in priority to the demands of the owner; yet the mortgagee contributed nothing in respect of that source of income to the local burdens. The fund owner in the same way, and the holders of debenture stock, held property as substantial security as real property; but, so far as that property was concerned, contributed nothing whatever to local taxation. But all owners of property were interested in such taxation, and should bear the burden of it in proportion to their interest. Under the Bill of the Government, they would not do so; and he protested, therefore, against those measures being accepted as in any degree a satisfactory settlement of the question with which they were meant to deal.

thought, as a Scotch Representative, that he had a right to complain that Scotland derived no benefit whatever from the pledge contained in Her Majesty's Speech, that the question of local taxation should be the subject of legislation this Session as well for Scotland as for England. He was sorry the Government did not adopt the broad principle of taxing property on the gross value, which had been worked out so satisfactorily in Scotland for many years. Instead of that, they adhered to the present objectionable practice which obtained in England, of rating property according to some arbitrary distinction between its gross and its rateable value. Scotland was far ahead of England in the matter, and experienced no difficulty in regard to the rating of mines. But what he chiefly complained of was that these Bills utterly ignored the demand for relief from Imperial funds to local taxation. The principle for which he contended had, to a considerable extent, been adopted in the case of Privy Council grants for education, in respect of which national object, assistance from Imperial resources was given to various districts of the country. It was also adopted in the case of grants for the administration of justice, and for medical and sanitary officers under the Poor Law and Public Health Acts. Why should it not be further extended so as to embrace all objects of a national character which were now paid for out of local taxation? He regretted that this subject of subvention had been postponed by Her Majesty's Government; for this he knew, that the burden of local taxation had become intolerable. He hoped the Government would reconsider their pledges, and would not put off to the Greek Kalends compliance with the demand made last Session by a large majority, comprising hon. Members on both sides of the House, irrespective of party, that the general property of the country should be made to contribute equitably to local taxation. The Bills of the right hon. Gentleman might be good so far as they went, but they were only as a drop in the ocean of the general subject.

wished to know whether the Bills dealt with highways, which, owing to the abolition of turnpikes, were becoming a more and more pressing question. He was afraid that if the new system of local taxation were once stereotyped, without perfecting the machinery and embracing the question of highways and roads, it might throw obstacles in the way of dealing with that subject in future.

in reply to the various questions put to him, would first explain that the Bills did not deal with highways. They would fall under the second and larger branch of the subject —namely, local government, for which the Committee on Boundaries was intended to be a preparation. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) had complained of the postponement of the question of a Government subvention in aid of local taxation. Now, he (Mr. Stansfeld) had to complain that scarcely a fair construction had been placed upon the explanation he had given with regard to the position of the Government in the matter, for they were pledged, deeply pledged, to offer at the proper time substantial relief to local burdens, but they must be allowed some discretion as to the time, and he had stated very explicitly not only the reason why the Government felt that they could not enter upon that question at present; but also the steps by which they thought that it could be best approached, and he had indicated at the same time the period when it might best receive consideration. Meanwhile there was yet a much greater question for consideration than that of affording relief from local burdens out of local taxes. That relief might, under existing circumstances, be made under conditions which would make it no relief at all; which would produce demoralization, and lead to extravagance instead of to efficiency and economy. The Government were therefore distinctly of opinion, responsible as they felt themselves to be, that they could only approach the question of a Government subvention by the steps which they had indicated, and that such subvention must come in the very last instance, crowning, as it were, the arrangements for the complete organization of local government, and of the relations between local and Imperial control. He did not pretend that those Bills were a settlement of the financial question, for it remained intact; and hon. Members like the Government, were free to approach it under what he thought would be more favourable circumstances and a more fitting opportunity. The hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had asked why he did not extend the area of collection. Now, there would certainly be advantages in enlarging the unit, not only for the purpose of administration, but for the collection of rates, from the area of the parish to that of the Union. Collection would thus be invariably in the hands of paid and presumably competent and responsible men. Simple, however, as the proposal might appear, it would be a great revolution in the habits and perhaps the prejudices of 16,000 parishes, and his proposing it would probably result in the defeat of the whole measure. Should, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman raise the question in Committee, the Government would meet it fairly, and would admit the recommendations it possessed, whatever difficulties attended it. The proposal in the second Bill to bring in the surveyor of taxes in the valuation of property had given the lion. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) a not unnatural suspicion of centralization. That arrangement, however, already existed in the Metropolis, and it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) in 1867, and by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1869. It was essential to a valuation list complete for Imperial as well as local taxation, and the assessment committee might refuse the surveyor's valuation, which would only be one of the elements of the case before them, and he would have no greater right of appeal than a local authority or individual, while his suggestion would in the last resort be judged, in 99 cases out of 100, by local tribunals. In conclusion he might explain that he had accidentally omitted to explain a proposal as to incorporeal hereditaments. Putting aside rights of way, of common, of navigation, and manorial franchises of various kinds, which, from their small and uncertain value, would not be likely to contribute appreciably to the rates, the Government proposed to legislate with regard to the right of sporting. This, when united with the occupation of land, as owner or tenant, was included in the value of the occupation, and was therefore rated, but when severed from such occupation it escaped. Where the owner in occupation, or an occupier having a right to the game, let the sporting, the rent received for it was taken into account in reckoning the rateable value. Where, however, the owner let his land, reserving the game to himself, the value of this incorporeal hereditament was not estimated; and where he let the land to one person and the shooting to another, the right was likewise not valued. The Government thought it fair that in both these cases the right of sporting should be subject to rates, and he anticipated no objection to the proposal.

asked in what order the Bill would be taken, and when?

said, he proposed to move the second reading of the first Bill, for abolishing exemptions, and of the Bill relating to assessments on Thursday, the 15th inst. The second reading of the third Bill, providing for a Consolidated Rate, he was prepared to postpone, because, practically speaking, he did not think they could make progress with it until they had advanced some way with the other two.

asked when the Bills would be in the hands of hon. Members?

said, the first and second Bills were already in type, and would be in the hands of hon. Members certainly before the end of the week. The third Bill was not yet printed.

hoped sufficient time would be given for the circulation of the Bills through the country before the second reading. If they were to be in the hands of hon. Members only by the end of the week, and the second reading to take place on Thursday next week, there would be very little time.

said, he had proposed an early day because he thought the discussions would arise mainly in Committee, and because he was anxious, as time was running on, that no more of it should be lost than was necessary. He had no objection, however, to name Monday, the 19th, instead of Thursday, the 15th for the second reading, and he would give any time that was deemed reasonable for the Committee.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would move for the Select Committee on the Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties, on Thursday next?

Yes, on Thursday next.

said, it would, under ordinary circumstances, be far from his desire to obstruct for a moment the passage of a Bill abolishing tests—but he deemed it necessary to show that the simple abolition of tests would not accomplish the object which the hon. Member for Brighton professed to have in view, that it would not open the College and the University, and that it would not give a fair start in the race to all the natives of Ireland. He missed from the back of this Bill the name of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University. The omission was a remarkable one; but in Ireland, where the real sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman were well known and appreciated, it occasioned no surprise. The Bill abolished tests in the interest of secularism, but it retained concurrent endowment to the detriment of Catholicism. He would illustrate by a single fact the position in which it left Trinity College in regard of concurrent or denominational endowment. Of the numerous endowed secondary schools in Ireland he would take two classes—the Royal Schools and the Erasmus Smith Schools—and he found that they held exhibitions in Trinity College of the value—computed on a term of five years, being the average period for which exhibitions are held—of £26,110. The head of every one of these schools was a Protestant clergyman. Thus while they abolished tests they perpetuated ascendancy, and while ostentatiously throwing wide the door for the majority, they maintained still for the benefit of the minority a royal road to mathematics. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had gravely assured them that concurrent endowment was dead; and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said that Imperial policy could no longer tolerate concurrent endowment. The facts he had stated proved that in Ireland concurrent endowment was not dead but living, and a glance at the Estimates would satisfy hon. Members that it flourished in every part of the Empire. There were Votes there which surely were supplies for the living body, not immortelles to decorate the grave of the departed. Perhaps concurrent endowment ought to die; but if die it ought, it should die fairly. It could not die to the detriment of the majority of the Irish nation, and live for the aggrandizement of the minority. It could not die to the bereavement of Catholicism in Ireland, and live to be the solace of Episcopalianism in England, and Presbyterianism in Scotland. They must greatly extend or fundamentally destroy concurrent endowment—endow all, or disendow all—level up or level down—but let there be equality in the eye of the State between all the subjects of the Queen. The proposition which he begged to submit to the consideration of the House did not raise directly or indirectly the question of endowments. It contemplated only legal privileges. It aimed at giving practical effect to an educational policy propounded by Catholic laymen, accepted by Catholic Bishops, sanctioned by successive Governments, and ratified by decisions of this House. The essence of the Government Bill of this Session was the affiliation of Colleges, and the only objection urged against that portion of the scheme was that it endowed the Mater Universitatis with too numerous a family, some of its members being spoiled children of the State. The affiliation of the Catholic University was in principle accepted on all sides. The terms of the proposed affiliation were disputed, but no opposition was offered to the policy of establishing as a College of the University of Dublin the institution known as the Catholic University. The policy was not a new one—it was as old as Charles II. Under the Acts of Settlement and Explanations, it was provided that—

"The Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of this kingdom, by and with the consent of the Privy Council, shall have full power and authority to erect another College to be of the University of Dublin, to be called the King's College,"

and to endow it for ever out of the Crown lands with an allowance of £2,000 a-year—which would, of course, be represented now by a much larger sum. It was evident from the spirit of the Act of 1793—the 33 Geo. III, c, 21—and from the specific words, "Papists might graduate and be Professors or Fellows of any College hereinafter founded in Dublin University"—that it was then in the contemplation of the Irish Parliament to found another College—necessarily a Catholic College—in Dublin University. It was the policy of the Supplemental Charter; and if he was not misinformed it was the groundwork of a plan framed by a committee of lay Catholics, and approved of by the Catholic Bishops, which was submitted some years ago to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Preamble of the Bill before them stated its object to be to render the University and the College freely accessible to the nation. The best commentary upon this was contained in the words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—"It is impossible for them," the people of Ireland, "to have that free access if they are confined to the one mode of teaching which Trinity College affords." The Resolution he (Mr. P. J. Smyth) proposed would introduce another mode of teaching, and by so doing render the access free to the nation. If this Resolution were not accepted, when would the access be made free? Not this Session, nor the next, nor probably the next again, and meanwhile a nation was left out in the cold, discontent was fostered, and agitation encouraged. Free access to the nation! He thanked the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) for these words. They established his case. They implied a mode of teaching, a system of education in harmony with the traditions, the feelings, and the instincts of the nation. For 80 years Catholic students, as individuals, had had free access to degrees in Trinity College. For 40 years Catholic students, as individuals, had had free access to degrees in London University. But the same free access that was given to them was also provided by the system of local examination for the Hindoo in India, and the Maori in New Zealand. He frankly acknowledged that no Government, Liberal or Conservative, had ever suggested that the claims of Ireland could be satisfied by placing the 4,500,000 Catholics, constituting the nation of Ireland, on a level with the solitary Hindoo or the solitary Maori. Both had admitted that the grievance complained of was a national grievance, and that the remedy provided must be a national remedy. The establishment of the Catholic University as a College in Dublin University would necessarily involve an alteration in the constitution of Dublin University, and possibly in that of the Catholic University itself. Such alterations would, as a matter of course, be made so as to render the constitutions of both conformable to the plan which both had voluntarily accepted. He was not called upon to enter into details upon that point. He simply asked the House to re-affirm a principle, and leave the arrangements to be made by a Commission chosen impartially without reference to creed or party. He believed—and he had reason to believe—that such an arrangement would be made as would astonish by its simplicity and its moderation, and command the assent of all for its fairness and its justice. The House, he conceived, should welcome a proposal that would relieve it of the task of discussing the details of Irish University Bills, and that would lay the foundation at least of an enduring settlement of this embarrassing question. The time approached when some Irish constituencies at least would be addressed by Friends of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, or of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and there was a natural anxiety to learn what part of the policy of 1868—a charter and endowment for a Catholic University—the one right hon. Gentleman had not abandoned, if he had not abandoned all and every part of it, and to what extent, if any, the other right hon. Gentleman was prepared to allow his Imperial policy to bend to national conviction. Whatever might be the fate of this Amendment, the House, he felt satisfied, would concur with him that the indefinite postponement of a settlement declared to be vital, not alone to the peace and prosperity of Ireland, but to the honour and existence of Government, was opposed alike to sound policy and the true interests of the Empire. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

in seconding the Amendment, said, he knew of no reasonable grounds on which it could be resisted, for the hon. Members for the University of Dublin, who on this question represented the Irish Protestants generally, had said that they were not opposed to the affiliation of this College; and it was a well-ascertained fact that the Catholics were not hostile to the principle of affiliation. Floods of eloquence had been poured forth in the late debate, on the social advantages of mixing the youth of both religions in these academic halls; and he mentioned that fact in order to declare that there never was a greater calumny than the assertion that the Catholic Bishops discouraged the social intercourse of Catholics with Protestants. He condemned the Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) as useless either as a settlement or a concession. Who wanted the Bill? The Catholics did not want it—the Irish Episcopalians did not want it. It was a mere waste of time to discuss it. Moreover, he contended, that if the Bill were to pass in its present shape, the question of Irish University education would be left exactly in the same position as that in which it now stood. To pass it would be a mere waste of time, unless it was intended for some half-dozen or dozen loose Roman Catholics, who misrepresented the views of their co-religionists. He, for one, protested against the attempt to force on Ireland a University system which was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church; and although' the hon. Member for Brighton might not regard the Bill as a settlement of the question, he believed there were many hon. Gentlemen in that House who had made up their minds to treat it in that light. If so, Irish hon. Members opposite never had a better opportunity to prove their sympathy with the majority of their countrymen than by voting for tile Amendment of the hon. Member for Westmeath. They would not have another opportunity of showing that they could separate themselves from party—not even if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire became Prime Minister. They had shown that they could separate themselves from party—party divisions were not always taken on questions of principle. Perhaps those hon. Gentlemen would say that they sympathized with the Motion, but that the time for passing it was inopportune, and at no distant day that sympathy would ripen into a warmer alliance. That would be consolatory, remove much mystery, and pave the way for great things in future. He hoped the hon. Members for the University of Dublin would not be silent on this question, but state whether they were for or against it; and whether now or at any future time they would help to obtain a University education for their Catholic brethren. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not hesitate till Parliament met on College Green, for whenever that happened, this and other questions would be settled without their assistance.

said, he inferred from the speeches of the hon. Members for Westmeath and Tralee, that they had come round to his opinion—namely, that the way to improve Ireland and to raise her in the scale of nations was in the matter of education to band Irishmen together, not as followers of Luther or Calvin, or as followers of this or that Pope, but as Irishmen. That such a proposal should have come from his two hon. Friends was to him most gratifying, and it should have his hearty support.

said, on the contrary, he thought that Irish Members would find it difficult to defend themselves from the just reproach which would be brought against them if they supported the present Motion. The Government proposal seemed to him in substance better than that which the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Smyth) now brought forward, and yet it had been rejected by them. For himself, he was not prepared to recede from the demand which had been preferred by the Catholics of Ireland in favour of denominational education in Colleges.

thought the House had better decline to discuss the Motion, as it could not do so without reviving a very wide and important subject—the whole question of University education in Ireland. This was undesirable for many reasons. In the first place, the present was only an abstract Resolution, and it should be remembered that an opportunity was given by the Government for the second reading of the hon. Member for Brighton's Bill on a Government night, on the distinct understanding that it was to be confined to the abolition of religious tests. He therefore suggested to his hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that it would be better for their own interests not to pursue the matter further, but to be satisfied with having stated their views, and left on record the claim which they made; and that the House should proceed to pass what undoubtedly was a great benefit and gain to such members of the Roman Catholic Church as did not think that education in every respect should be united with religious teaching, or require the teachers to hold a particular form of belief.

supported the Motion. The very ground upon which he objected to the Bill was, that it conferred the opportunity upon those Catholics who did not object to united education. He thought the moment chosen very opportune, for if the instruction were adopted, then the Committee would inquire into all the details as to how affiliation could be carried out. The great objection to this Bill was, that it would be accepted by the majority of the House as a settlement of the question.

entirely concurred in the opinion, that it would be desirable to have a Catholic College affiliated to the University of Dublin; but to allow of such a proceeding taking place, it was essential, in the first instance, that the constitution of the Governing Body of that University should be of such a character as to permit of the affiliation of a Catholic College to it. Now, the Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) did not in any way propose to alter the constitution of the University of Dublin; nor did the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Smyth) so far as he could see, give power to the Committee on the Bill to alter it. Under these circumstances, he did not know that he would be justified by Catholic opinion in Ireland in supporting the Motion; and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House upon it, because it might give rise to misunderstanding.

said, he was also opposed to any attempt at a settlement of this question, which proposed affiliation without any change in the constitution of Trinity College. He adopted the principle of the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, though he had voted against it. He had voted against it because the right hon. Gentleman himself had given up its principle. The Resolution now proposed would place the Irish Members in a false position, because they would be charged with having rejected, on one day, a measure of broad and liberal principles, and with having accepted, on another, a proposal involving but a small modicum of that principle for which they had been always contending.

joined in the appeal made by his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to his hon. Friend the Member for West- meath (Mr. Smyth) to withdraw his Resolution, as they had strong evidence to prove that the proposal which he made would be repudiated by all parties concerned. He had failed to show that it had any support from any party representing any section of opinion in Ireland. Having refused something like 10s. in the pound of their demands offered them by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the Irish Catholic Members were not going now to accept 2s. 6d. in the pound, as proposed by the hon. Member for Westmeath. The present state of University education in Ireland had been characterized by the Prime Minister as a great evil which required to be remedied, and it was acknowledged by him that the present Bill was in no way a settlement of it. It remained to be dealt with in the future; and he trusted that the Prime Minister, notwithstanding the recent failure of his University Bill, with the courage which characterized him, would not shrink from again considering the question, and would not hesitate in a future Session to deal with that great question, which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to treat in a manner more in accordance with the feelings of the Irish people than before.

said, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Smyth) demanded due attention, but it was not to be supposed that his hon. Friend had ever contemplated carrying it. He (Mr. Brady) had always thought that the Bill would never be viewed by the Irish people as a settlement of this question, and he was therefore resolved to vote against it. Although the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had failed in his effort to deal with the question of Irish education, he might rest assured that the Irish people would ever remember with gratitude what he had accomplished in their interests and for their benefit.

in supporting the Motion, denied that Irish Members would be guilty of inconsistency in supporting it; indeed, he maintained that the principles advocated by his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Smyth) were those which Irish Members had always advocated. The Bill of the Government proposed to destroy Trinity College and to raise an entirely new structure upon its foundation, which was to be handed over to the Castle of Dublin. He, on the contrary, had always advocated the maintenance of Trinity College, and he looked with great pleasure upon the attempt of the authorities of that institution to liberalize and reform themselves. Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition having both burnt their fingers in the attempt to settle this purely Irish question, they now asked that those in whom Catholics and Protestants had confidence might be allowed to try if they could not settle this vexed question among themselves in Ireland. The associations of Trinity College were dear to Irishmen, though Roman Catholics, and he could not but recollect that it was to the Bill of the Irish Protestant Parliament of 1793, the Catholics were indebted for the first step towards their emancipation. There was not that antagonism about religion socially in Ireland that the House supposed, and it was only kept up in that House, because each party had been taught for generations to complain here one against the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended the Irish people to settle their railway questions at home, and then to come to that House to ratify the settlement. Let them be permitted to follow the advice of the right lion. Gentleman with respect to the University question, and he believed that the best results would follow.

supported the Amendment, on the ground that no proposal could be more in harmony with the wishes of the Catholic University, or of the Dublin University, as expressed in the debate which was held in its Senate, or of the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland, since nothing could tend more to promote the unity of the Empire and the stability of the Throne, than to affiliate the centre of the Roman Catholic education with the centre of Protestant education. He failed to see the inconsistency of voting for this proposal. To say that it was inconsistent to vote now for the affiliation of a Catholic College to the University of Dublin was to say that the great and wise policy of Mr. Burke had been mistaken from beginning to end. The only rule he desired the House to act upon in dealing with this question, as in dealing with other questions affecting Ireland, was that of taking the single-minded course of endeavouring to meet the wishes of the Irish people where those wishes were just and reasonable and could be carried out.

said, he would state, in a few words, the reasons why he was obliged to vote against the Amendment. It was impossible to vote in its favour, for it proposed to affiliate a Catholic College to a Protestant University without in the least degree altering the constitution of that University. Again, the Amendment was altogether foreign to the Bill, which was not a measure for the re-construction of the University of Dublin; it altered the Governing Body neither of the College nor the University; it was simply a Bill to deal with the abolition of tests, and if an Amendment like that were accepted, the whole question should be re-opened, and then they would have to inquire whether a Presbyterian College should not be affiliated, and whether it would not be better to affiliate the Queen's Colleges and abolish the Queen's University. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) supported the Instruction as a protest against the Bill being deemed a settlement of the question; but he forgot that the Government had given facilities to the present Bill, on the express understanding that it was not to be deemed a settlement, or as preventing the re-opening of the question when a favourable opportunity offered. The promoters of the Bill had reluctantly given up what they believed to be an important position, because they were anxious for the abolition of tests; but they felt that the question of Irish education could not be settled without a re-construction of the Dublin University. How that was to be effected the future only could tell, but he believed that no section of the House regarded this Bill as a settlement; and it was therefore unnecessary to press for a decision upon the point raised by the proposed Instruction. They sought to remove the great evil of tests, because they believed that that removal would greatly facilitate future reform.

said, he could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Smyth) on the grounds upon which it had generally been urged. The Bill would leave the University in possession of the Protestants, who would be able to secure degrees in Divinity, while the Roman Catholics had no such opportunity. Beyond that, the Instruction seemed to contemplate separating the Roman Catholics from their Protestant fellow-students.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 17, after "office," to insert "shall not, so long as the University of Dublin shall continue to teach and to grant degrees in the Faculty of Theology, apply to any Professor of Divinity; but, save as aforesaid, the word." The Committee would see that the object of his Amendment was to make an exception in the Bill in favour of the Professors of Theology. He had supported the Bill both last year and this year, and thought it afforded the best foundation which which had yet offered itself for future legislation on the subject. The hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) said, that it was a waste of time to pass the Bill. He (Colonel Wilson-Patten) thought that it was a most useful measure. Nobody pretended to regard the Bill as a final settlement of the question; but it would remove one of the obstacles to the settlement. Since the disestablishment of the Irish Church, it was no longer necessary to keep up the restrictions which prevailed in the University of Dublin. Ho, therefore, did not see why they should not clear away, by degrees, the obstacles which stood in the way of legislation on this question. An Amendment similar to his had been put on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope); but there were objections entertained to the words of his Amendment which did not apply to the one which he (Colonel Wilson-Patten) proposed. He had not heard hon. Members from Ireland who had spoken in this debate take any exception to the maintenance of the Faculty of Theology. He believed that there had been a mistake in the House in regard to the feeling which existed about the University of Dublin in Ireland. That University enjoyed the affection and respect of the whole Irish people, and not a single Irishman would wish it to be destroyed. He believed that the Roman Catholic Members could consistently give support to his proposition, and he trusted that it would be supported by the Government. In conclusion, he could assure the House that in bringing forward the Motion, he was actuated by no party feeling, and he hoped that they would yet arrive at some settlement of the education question which would be satisfactory to all classes in Ireland.

said, he understood that no objection was entertained by the promoters of the Bill to the Amendment, and he wished to say, on the part of the Government, that he had no objection to offer. It was an Amendment perfectly fair in itself, and it had been proposed in a manner to commend it to the acceptance of the House, and that more especially at a time when the whole question of the retention of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Dublin was still sub judice, and awaiting the decision of Parliament. He believed the Amendment would be received in no unfavourable spirit on the part of those of a different religious profession. The Government agreed that the question of University education in Ireland would require, and he hoped that favourable circumstances would offer some opportunity for, further consideration, and this provision, as an intermediate one, recommended itself to general acceptance.

said, that he had a Motion on the Paper similar in scope to that of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten); but he accepted, with great pleasure, the form of words which had been proposed, believing that they substantially effected the object he had in view. He could not conceive such a thing as a Professorship of Divinity divorced from doctrine.

said, he was so far satisfied with the Amendment, that he would not move the one he had on the Paper, which was nearly to the same effect.

said, that although as far as he was concerned he would rather not have had the Amendment, yet he accepted it in deference to the great preponderance of feeling in its favour, as expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in the hope that it would facilitate the progress of the measure.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "denomination" to "and," in line 10. The hon. Member said, his object in moving the Amendment was to do away with the possibility of any obligation being imposed upon any student to attend any religious service whatever.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that any fines or restrictions were imposed upon Dissenting students to compel their attendance at church. There was, however, a College Chapel within the walls which the students belonging to the Established Church had always been expected to attend, and the Amendment would be opposed to the feeling of the Members of that Body.

said, the Bill provided that no person should be compelled to attend the public worship of any religion to which he did not belong. As one, however, who while a student at Cambridge, had been liable to penalties for not attending three chapels a-week, he did not think that young men should be compelled to attend even the worship of the Church to which they did belong, and he, therefore, supported the Amendment.

said, that if parents belonging to the Established Church intrusted their sons to the care of the College authorities, they would desire to see their attendance at the College Chapel enforced by a system of gentle compulsion.

hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, as no new power was given by the clause at all; and if the College had not power to compel attendance at chapel now, they would not have any such power under the Bill. This was a Bill, not for altering the constitution of the College, but only for removing certain religious disabilities. To pass the Amendment would be entirely to alter the character of the Bill.

objected to any man being compelled, in order to bring himself within the relief of the clause, to become a member of any Church or religious sect or denomination.

remarked that, while in Mahomedan countries students were punished for breaches of discipline by being excluded from the mosques, the custom in Christian England seemed to be to compel their attendance at chapel. He opposed the Amendment for the reason that it was a direct premium for professing Dissent, inasmuch as a man would thereby relieve himself from attending chapel. He did not think it was any hardship on persons in statu pupillari to require them to attend chapel, provided the services were not contrary to their religious convictions.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), on the ground that the whole system of compulsory attendance was bad, and in the English Universities was on its last legs. In two Colleges at Oxford the practice of compelling attendance at chapel was abolished, and he hoped that before long the practice would be generally got rid of.

said, he should give his support to the Amendment. He wished to add another instance to those of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). The University of the town he represented had about three times the number of students in the University of Dublin, and no one was compelled to attend any church, and, moreover, there was no chapel to attend. The University had existed 300 years, and there never was a chapel in it. No one should be obliged to attend the chapel of a different denomination to that to which he belonged. Indeed, he objected to giving power to compel a man to attend any place of worship.

said, the existing practice was not felt as a grievance at all. Any student who objected on religious grounds to attend chapel had only to say so, which was tantamount to declaring himself a Dissenter, and then he had a right to remain away, there being no investigation into the matter. There was no compulsory attendance at Trinity College, except in the case of Protestant Episcopalians. In their case the proper guide was the wish of the parent, which was always to be respected. This, he believed, would almost universally be in favour of attendance. He objected to any interference with the domestic regulations of the College.

opposed the Amendment, but granted that, though he objected to compulsory attendance at chapel, he thought the matter should not be settled by the House of Commons, but should be left to the Universities to settle for themselves.

said, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the Amendment.

in rising to move, "That the Bill be read a second time that day six months," said, he wished to point out that the Bill was of more importance to everyone connected with the landed interest of Ireland than, perhaps, was generally supposed. He objected to the Bill, as he had stated on a former occasion, because it was intended to entrust the valuation of all the landed property of Ireland to persons who were not competent to carry it on; but were this his only objection he would not now trouble the House, as he had entered into the subject very fully before. He objected to the Bill now because, if he understood it rightly, the principle on which the Bill was based was a most dangerous one. Under the previous Valuation Acts the valuators were required to examine the properties of the soil; they were to go into each townland and examine the soil, and calculate what that soil would produce, and in the Acts there were Schedules of prices for agricultural produce, and they were to estimate the produce by the scale of prices in the Act. But this was not the principle of this Bill. Turning to Clause 10 of the Bill, he found that the valuation was to be made on an estimate of the net annual value of the tenements and hereditaments, and he should like to hear from the Secretary of the Treasury how that net annual value of the land was to be ascertained. There was nothing in this Bill about an examination of the soil, or a calculation of its produce according to any fixed scale, as in previous Acts; but power was given to the valuators to determine what they considered the full annual letting value of the land, in other words what they considered ought to be the rent. This was a proposal of the most important character. Remembering the agitation in Ireland for what were termed valuation rents, he could not help pointing out to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that they were sanctioning this principle by this Bill, and for himself he could not help objecting to having what was practically the settlement of the rental of the country placed in the hands of those in whom he had no confidence. He also objected to half the expense being charged on the local rates, for, though the present valuation was low this did not injuriously affect local taxation, and by an increase in the valuation the Imperial Exchequer alone would gain through a larger income tax. He objected also to the proposed cost of the valuation. It was stated before the Committee that the valuation could be made for £50,000 for three Provinces. It was now proposed that the cost should be £70,000. It was also stated before the Committee that the valuation would be completed in three years, but now it was proposed to extend it to seven years. Turning to the details of the measure, he found them to be of the most objectionable character. For instance, the clauses taxing machinery and taxing improvements in land, he considered most objectionable. It was proposed to pay a fixed sum for the revision, and that it should be fixed for seven years. Now, he could not say that he approved of having a fixed sum in the Schedule. He thought it would be much better that each county should pay for the work really done, and he intended to propose in Committee that each county should pay the cost of the revising officers and no more. He would prefer to see a system of valuation for Ireland similar to that which had been adopted in Scotland. He believed the valuation in Scotland had not cost more than £8,000 or £9,000; but the last valuation in Ireland had cost some £325,000, and took an unnecessarily long time to complete. For those reasons he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill, and although he did not expect to be successful, he should certainly take the sense of the House on the measure, and intended in Committee to move Amendments in the direction which he had indicated.

said, he supported the second reading of the Bill, because the present valuation was far below what it ought to be, and he thought it should be placed on a fair basis. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would postpone his Union Rating Bill until his new valuation was completed, believing that if that were done the great argument in favour of Union rating—namely, the inequality of taxation as between town and country—would then have ceased to exist. He objected strongly to Clause 16 as containing a proposal which was unfair, and there were one or two other clauses in the Bill which he also disapproved. He hoped, however, these faults would be got rid of in Committee.

said, he must oppose the Bill, on the ground that no local bodies in Ireland asked for the measure; and, moreover, he objected to it on economical grounds, and that it laid down no fixed principle of valuation whatever, for it would make the valuation much too high in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, while it would be comparatively low in Ulster. The Bill, moreover, would increase the valuation in Ireland by some £3,000,000, so that that additional amount would be available for Imperial taxation. The Bill was one really for Imperial and not for local purposes; and the Treasury and not the localities ought in equity to pay the cost which it would entail.

objected to the Bill, on the ground that the proposal contained in it would have the effect of putting increased taxation on Ireland. The Bill was part of the financial policy of the Government, and therefore he thought it reasonable to consider it and the Budget together on the present occasion. The reduction of the sugar duties amounted to £1,625,000; and from the calculation which he had made from Government Returns, he had ascertained that the amount of the reduction in Ireland would be £30,000. The income tax reduction was £1,643,000; but the amount which Ireland would gain out of that sum would be only £105,000; Consequently, while the amount remitted by the Budget amounted to £3,238,000 the amount remitted with regard to Ireland would be £137,000, while the amount that would be imposed on Ireland by the increase of valuation would amount to £37,500. He considered that to be most unfair treatment to Ireland, for while the reduction was 2s. 5¾d. per head of the population of Great Britain it was only 6d. per head in Ireland. The effect of this Bill would be, by increasing the rateable value in Ireland, to increase taxation on the owners of real property who gained little by the reductions of the Budget. He was, however, glad to see that the new taxation which would be imposed upon Ireland, if the Bill became law, would affect only real property, and that the professional incomes would have the full benefit of the remission of taxation under the reduced rate of income tax. Under all the circumstances, he should feel bound to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon.

regarded the Bill as a simple measure for raising a certain further amount of taxation upon property in Ireland. The Irish tenantry would not be at all affected by the measure, but it would fall heavily upon the landlords in that country. However, as the Bill was framed against Ireland, it would, of course, be supported by England and Scotland and would pass. The rating of towns in Ireland since 1852 had been largely increased, whilst there was no such increase in the rating of the lands in Ireland. Why, he asked, did they not bring in a similar Bill as the present for England? The object of the measure was obviously to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to augment his revenue by the increased taxation of Ireland. He thought that the Government ought to have instituted an inquiry into this subject before they introduced the Bill.

said, that the Bill was misnamed. It should have been entitled a measure to enable the Government to draw more money from the already heavily-taxed people of Ireland. Nobody in Ireland had ever asked for this Bill, the effect of which would be to confiscate a little more of the property of Ireland entirely for English purposes. "Seething a kid in its mother's milk" was forbidden by the Jewish law; but the Government not only practically increased the income tax in Ireland by 3d. in the pound, but did it also at the expense of Irishmen. The duty of every statesman was to do something to induce the Irish people to remain in their own country; but this Bill, like the Church and the Land Acts, would have a directly contrary effect. It would be most unpopular in Ireland, and would be of no advantage to man, woman, or child.

said, the object of the Bill was to establish a uniform rate for the purpose of taxation, and taken in that view it was impossible to resist the measure. Rent was not to be taken as the exact measure of the value of land, though it was a considerable element in its calculation, but there were other things that went to make up the gross amount. A certain amount of taxation had to be raised, and it was only right there should be an equitable valuation of the whole of the country. The present inequality arose from accidental circumstances, and this was but a fair and just proposal of the Government.

supported the Bill, on the ground that it was desirable that there should be a complete re-valuation of the property of Ireland on fair and equitable principles, and said he should be content if the progress of this Bill were delayed until the House had considered the measure relating to the valuation of England, so that they might secure that the valuation in both countries should be conducted on principles more or less identical.

said, he wished to point out, that if the valuation of Ireland were raised to the extent it would be if this Bill became law, a large number of tenant-farmers would be shut out from the benefit which Parliament, when it passed the Land Act, thought right to confer upon them; compensation for "disturbance" under that Act would be reduced in some eases as much as 50 per cent; and many tenant-farmers would be placed in such a position that their landlords could compel them to contract themselves out of their rights under the Land Act.

said, that not a single word had been uttered in the course of the debate adverse to the principle of the Bill, and as for the details, the Government were ready to listen to any suggestions for their improvement. He frankly admitted that one of the objects of the Government in introducing the Bill was to increase the Imperial taxation of Ireland; but there were other reasons which induced them to bring the measure forward. There were very complicated questions between landlord and tenant under the Land Act, and questions which affected the Franchise, none of which could be settled until the valuation of the country was placed on a satisfactory basis. An objection was urged to the Bill, that half of the expense was to be thrown on the counties, and it was said that if the Treasury wanted the Bill it ought to pay the whole of the cost. But he denied that the Bill was introduced wholly for Imperial purposes, and he would instance the case of the revaluation of Scotland under the Act of 1854, when the whole of the cost was borne without complaint by the counties and boroughs of Scotland. He hoped the Irish Members would give him their assistance in making this Bill as satisfactory as possible, in which case he could assure them the measure would be not only to the advantage of the Imperial Government, but also of the people of Ireland.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had ignored the fact that Ireland possessed a valuation that was perfectly good for local purposes, and that the improvement was merely desired for Imperial purposes. That valuation cost £325,000, every penny of which was defrayed by Ireland, and the comparison the right hon. Gentleman had sought to draw with Scotland did not exist in fact.

said, he must complain that his hon. and learned Friend had vouchsafed no explanation of his Bill—which was one rather difficult to understand. It was introduced without remark, and now the second reading had been proposed without remark. The Bill proposed to alter the law of entail in Scotland and to unsettle the Act of 1848, which placed the Scotch entails on the same footing as English entails. He had no strong feelings in favour of entail; but he wanted to know what were the reasons which had induced the Government to introduce a Bill of that kind; what were the mischiefs it was proposed to remedy; what were the objects it was proposed to secure? He had had communications from several parties in Scotland, who had expressed their difficulty in understanding what was the object of the Bill as regarded the alteration of the law of 1848. He did not wish to oppose the Bill, provided the Lord Advocate could give good and sufficient reasons for its introduction; otherwise he should reserve his right to oppose the Bill when it went into Committee, by which time the country would be better enabled to express an opinion upon it.

would not say anything about the entail part of the Bill, or to the desire to introduce the English system, but he desired to protest against the stringency of the clause relating to bequests to public charities. He thought the Bill should be deferred for some time to allow of an expression of opinion in Scotland in regard to its provisions.

said, the Bill was an improvement on the previous Bill, which was defective in this respect—that while it gave the best facilities for disentailing, it left intact the powers which owners had to entail. He was aware that the Bill did not meet with the entire approval of entail proprietors, but it gave the best facilities for the sale of property, and his own opinion was that they should give the best facilities for this, unless reasonable provision were made for other members of the family besides the heir. He also hoped the right hon. and learned Lord would re-consider the part of the Bill relating to mortmain.

said, the reason why he had refrained from making a speech in moving the second reading was that, as he could only make one speech according to the rules of the House, he thought it better to wait to hear what the objections to the measure were before making any remarks. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) had asked for certain explanations of the provisions of the Bill. He (the Lord Advocate) presumed that he had done this on behalf of others; because as the Bill had been in his hands for some time, and considering his position at the Scotch Bar, if he did not understand it, the plain course for him to take would be to move its rejection, on the ground that it was unintelligible; but, as he had not done this, he presumed his hon. Friend had understood it. He (the Lord Advocate) had, however, had conversations with various Scotch Members, who seemed thoroughly to understand what the Bill proposed. Now, as to the change which the Bill made in the Act of 1848, the first thing, which must strike everyone who had read it was that it prohibited entails for the future, and that it rejected the Act of 1685, under which entails existed in Scotland, and which was not done by the Act of 1848. The Bill proposed to dispense with certain restrictions as to date of birth of heirs apparent, or nearest heirs qualified to give consent to sale, and to allow efficacy of consent without reference to the date of birth. With respect to the freedom given to the proprietors of entailed estates, he had to explain that under approbation of the Court they might, on the security of the estate, expend money to the amount of six years' revenue for the purpose of improvement, and it was to be observed that the Bill made it possible for proprietors to resort to the Court without any considerable loss either of time or money. That was an entirely new provision. The Act of 1848 made no change in that respect at all, but only gave credit to the successors of an heir of entail for three-fourths of any money spent by him for improvement. It was said there was no provision for proceeding under the Report of the In-closure Commissioners; but he would undertake to have the defect in this respect made good before the Bill passed out of Committee. In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire, he proposed to give the Judges power to overrule what were called the mortmain clauses.

and Mr. CRAUFURD complained that a Bill of so much importance and intricacy should be discussed at half-past 1 in the morning — Mr. CRAUFURD objecting to the growing habit of bringing on Scotch business after midnight.