asked the Secretary to the Treasury, On what principle the valuation of Railways in Ireland is based, and what is the duty of the Commissioner of Valuation respecting its revision; is he bound to revise such valuation each year or not; whether he can explain the grounds on which the valuation of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway, being £28,213 in 1861, was in 1862 reduced without appeal to £14,809, at which amount it continued till 1871, when without appeal it was raised to £14,995, and subsequently, an objection being lodged against it, was raised in 1872 by the Commissioner, first to £17,032, and then to £26,614, the Line having been leased in 1866 to the Dublin and Wicklow Company at a fixed rent of £36,000; and, whether the Commissioner of Valuation is the same gentleman who seconded the adoption of the report at the half-yearly meeting of this Company in August 1867, and who made a speech at the previous half-yearly meeting, showing its prosperity and good management?

I have to state that Railways in Ireland are valued upon net receipts, less allowance for interest on capital, tenants' profits, &c. The Commissioner of Valuation has been advised that he should not exercise the power of revising the valuation of railways in each year unless moved to do so by a ratepayer or other interested person. The Dublin and Kingstown Railway Company remonstrated against the valuation made in 1860—£28,213. Their remonstrance was considered to be well founded. Further allowances were made in diminution, and the valuation was reduced in 1862 to £14,809. These allowances have been sanctioned by the Chairman of the County and the Recorder of the City of Dublin upon appeal. There was no re-valuation in 1871. The increase was caused by improvements and additions to stations, whereby the valuation of the buildings was increased. The rent of £36,000 was decided, at the appeal above mentioned, not to be the measure of value of this railway. The lease included not only the railway, but rolling stock, &c., valued at £60,000, which are not rateable, and houses, &c., which are separately rated. The Commissioner of Valuation is the person who seconded the adoption of the Report referred to. He was not then Commissioner. Immediately upon appointment to that duty he parted with every share he held in Irish railways, at a very considerable loss to himself. I regret that my hon. Friend has thought it necessary to ask the last Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could give any information as to the present position in regard to the pending Treaty of Commerce negotiated with France during the Presidency of M. Thiers; and whether, in presence of the fact that on a recent occasion the Minister of Commerce made a public statement before the French Assembly, in which he directly referred to negotiations with Her Majesty's Government for modifications in that Treaty, he would have any objection to lay before the House any Correspondence which may have been exchanged on this subject?

in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had not yet received any official communication from the newly constituted Government of France respecting the Treaty of Commerce negotiated with France during the Presidency of M. Thiers, although they had every reason to believe that the subject was engrossing their serious attention. Instructions had been sent to Her Majesty's Representative at Paris with a view to the due protection of British commercial interests; but up to the present moment there had been no Correspondence on the subject which could be presented to Parliament.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there had been two objections taken to the measure, one of them founded upon the general objection to guarantees, and the other upon an allegation that the present proposal was a bribe to the Canadian Legislature, in order to induce them to consent to the Fishery provisions of the Washington Treaty. It was no part of his duty on that occasion to defend the general principle of Colonial guarantees—in fact, he should be ready to accept entirely the speech upon that topic which was made some years ago by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in which he stated his objection to these guarantees. But even in that speech the right hon. Gentleman was too wise and too far-seeing not to know that no general rule could be laid down upon such a subject, which would not be liable to exception, and stated accordingly that such guarantees should not be given except for objects of broad general policy. For such objects this Bill was now submitted, and the allegation that the guarantee was in the nature of a bribe was not very complimentary to Her Majesty's Government or to the Government of the Dominion. One of the conditions on which the confederation with British Columbia was arranged was that the Government of the Dominion should be responsible for the construction of a railway which should connect the seaboard of British Columbia with the railway system of the Dominion. With a debt of some $80,000,000 and with a revenue of about $20,000,000, it was no light thing to incur that responsibility; but the circumstances of the case fully justified the action of the Canadian Legislature, because to the confederation of our North American Colonies and the consequent development of their internal resources and increase of population, the far-seeing statesmen of Canada rightly looked for the future progress of their country and the best means of consolidating it upon such a basis as would certainly lead to its permanent wealth and prosperity. Nor must it be supposed that England was entirely uninterested in this matter. With the exception of the Netherlands, there was no country which in proportion to its population took more of English goods than Canada, and if the natural results of the construction of a great railway like the Pacific Railway should follow, if traffic should be developed and population increased, it was hardly possible to doubt that there would be a corresponding increase in the importation of English goods. He did not recommend the guarantee to the House upon that ground; but it was a point which should not be forgotten when they came to the general consideration of this question. Having undertaken the construction of the railroad, the Dominion had certainly done her part. She had given 50,000,000 acres of land for the main line, 25,000 acres per mile for the branch line to Lake Superior, and 20,000 acres per mile for the branch to Manitoba, and she was about to give a subsidy of $30,000,000 for which in part she now asked the guarantee of England to enable her to raise the money on better terms. Not that the construction of the railway was made to depend upon the guarantee. It was no such thing. It was merely a question of the saving of interest. With regard to the advantage which the guarantee would be to Canada, Sir Francis Hincks, speaking on the 30th of April, 1872, stated that to float a loan of $40,000,000 the Dominion would have to pay 6 per cent, whereas with half the amount guaranteed by England she would be able to float her own 5 per cent bonds at par, and the guaranteed half could be raised at 4 per cent, making a saving upon the whole of 1½ per cent, or equal to $600,000 a-year. This country would not depend upon, nor was it asked to guarantee, the success of the railway; and upon this point he asked hon. Gentlemen not to be led away into a discussion on the particular line of railway which had been adopted. He had heard in private conversation many persons advocating one or other particular line and speaking about alternative lines, and maintaining that the line sanctioned by the Government of the Dominion was not likely to succeed; but that was part of the question which it was not the business of that House to discuss. The particular line to be adopted and all the arrangements with reference thereto were emphatically questions for the Government of the Dominion to decide, and with which we had nothing to do. Their business was to see that the English taxpayers were safe. That had been taken care of, because their guarantee was the whole of the revenue of Canada, which was in a most flourishing state. This measure had nothing whatever to do with the Fishery provisions of the Washington Treaty, nor had it indeed anything at all to do with the provisions of that Treaty. The negotiation would have occurred even if there had been no High Commission, and in fact the transaction out of which it came occurred months before the appointment of the High Commission. The House was perfectly aware of the facts connected with the Fenian raid in Canada. In 1870 the Postmaster General of Canada was sent to this country to bring under the notice of Her Majesty's Government various questions connected with the Dominion, and Lord Kimberley, writing to Sir John Young, now Lord Lisgar, on the 27th of July, 1870, with reference to an interview with that gentleman, used these words—

"Mr. Campbell pressed strongly upon me that a representation should be made to the United States Government with reference to the late Fenian incursion into Canada, which has awakened such just feelings of indignation in the Dominion, and he urged the claims of Canada for reparation for the losses which she has sustained by that incursion. Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered what steps it would be advisable to take in this matter, and I have to acquaint you that they are of opinion that, in the first instance, your Ministers should draw up a full and authentic statement of the facts, and of the claims which they found upon them; this statement should be transmitted by you to Her Majesty's Government, in order that it may be laid by them before the Government of the United States."

The argument of Canada was that having no control whatever over the affairs of Ireland she had been, in consequence of certain events which had discontented persons connected with that country, exposed to a raid from the territory of a neighbouring Power, and that under these circumstances some one must be responsible for the losses she had incurred. When these claims had been brought under the notice of the British High Commissioners, the American Government declined to allow them to form part of the reference to arbitration, and Lord Kimberley, writing on the 20th of June, 1871, said it was with regret we acquiesced in their omission from the general settlement of outstanding questions; but it was evident that the British Commissioners were right in thinking that there was no reasonable probability for further pressing the point of coming to an agreement with the American Com- missioners in regard to it. There being a prospect of the settlement of all the other differences between the two countries upon terms honourable to both. Her Majesty's Government thought it better to waive the question of the Canadian claims rather than lose the opportunity of settling differences which they had been striving for years to get rid of. There was no doubt some discontent in the Dominion at the course which was taken; but Her Majesty's Government felt it their duty to adhere to their determination; and on the 20th of January, 1872, the Canadian Government drew up a Minute, which was forwarded to this country, in which the proposal of the guarantee was made. Let it be observed that this was not an offer made by Her Majesty's Government to Canada, but, on the contrary, it was the Government of the Dominion who proposed it to us. His idea of a bribe was an offer by some party to another party in order to induce the second party to do something which was desired by the first; but in this case the Government of the Dominion were quite ready to do that which Her Majesty's Government desired without any consideration. But they desired to have this question of the Fenian raids, a question between Canada and ourselves, separate and distinct from other questions, settled at the same time with the Treaty, and they accordingly made this proposal. By a telegram just received he was able to say that Proclamation had appeared in The Canada Gazette to the effect that the Treaty provisions would take effect on July 1st, so that Canada had performed her part, and it only remained for the House to decide upon the proposal before them that we might perform ours. But though this was proposed as a settlement of all questions between Canada and ourselves, it was not an abandonment of these claims on our part, and if we chose to-morrow to advance claims against the United States in respect of the Fenian claims, there was nothing to prevent us from doing so. We did not require to bribe the Canadian Parliament to assent to the provisions of the Treaty—the Fishery provisions of the Treaty were always popular in the districts affected by them, and the opposition came from the inland provinces, who desired to wring from the United States a policy more favourable to themselves in reference to the Reciprocity Treaty. That was a great mistake; for the refusal to renew the Reciprocity Treaty had, like the removal of protective duties in this country, given an immense impulse to trade; and measures had been taken which must materially increase the prosperity of Canada. But with respect to the question of "a bribe," he would quote the words of Sir Francis Hincks in the same speech to which he had already referred. Sir Francis Hincks, speaking as the Finance Minister of Canada, said—

"The idea of asking money as a bribe was never thought of, but there was a claim on some one for Fenian losses, and the Imperial Government recognized the fact that they had incurred a responsibility to Canada on that account. True, the admission was very guarded, and it is very doubtful whether any amount worth consideration could have been obtained. At all events, the Dominion Government had not the slightest doubt that the best mode of settling these claims was by guarantee, and they deemed it expedient to announce their intention of proposing the measures necessary to give effect to the Treaty concurrently with the proposal for a guarantee."

The House would observe that this guarantee was of a twofold character. There was the £2,500,000, the origin of which he had explained, and there was a sum of £1,100,000 proposed to be transferred from the purpose for which it was intended in 1870—the purpose of fortifications—to the more peaceful purpose of the execution of works of internal improvement. It was not to be supposed that Canada abandoned all idea of fortification. She took the responsibility upon herself, and desired, as she had a right to desire, to choose her own time for the erection of fortifications when she should deem them necessary. Upon this matter Her Majesty's Government had had the advantage of consulting the late Sir George Cartier, upon his recent visit to England, in his capacity of Dominion Minister of Militia and Defence. And here he paused for a moment to pay a tribute of respect to one who was a most worthy son of Canada and a valuable servant of the Crown, of great and conspicuous ability—of highly cultured mind and powerful intellect. He reckoned it a privilege to count among his personal friends Sir George Cartier, whose loss would be severely felt by the country which he served. The wise, loyal, and patriotic way in which Sir George Cartier exercised his justly great influence over those of his own origin and religion in Canada would be long remembered; and, although he had passed away from among us, his example would still be felt, and the sentiments which he held, and the opinions which he cherished, would find their place in the hearts of very many of the population of the Dominion. It was Sir George Cartier's opinion that this transfer of the Canadian Fortification Loan should be made; and, indeed, that the true fortification of Canada would be found rather in the development of her internal resources, the improvement of her internal communications and the bringing of population to her shores, than in the erection of half-a-dozen fortresses at double or treble the expense. He felt confident that the sentiments which Sir George Cartier inspired and the opinions on which he acted had not died with him. They were widely diffused throughout the Dominion of Canada, and he felt sure that, though there were few who could emulate the brilliancy of Sir George Cartier's talents, there were many who would follow the example of his loyalty. Sir George Cartier came to this country and brought this subject specially under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. It was never the intention of the Canadian Government to abandon altogether the idea of the fortifications; she made herself responsible for them, and Her Majesty's Government thought, and no doubt the House would also think, that it was right to leave Canada to judge for herself when the fortifications should be made. When Canada desired that this loan should be devoted to other purposes Her Majesty's Government exercised a wise discretion in assenting to it. The true policy of Canada depended not on the erection of a fort here and there, but on developing her resources, and he believed the people of Canada would do more for the defence of that country by making this railway than if they were to construct half-a-dozen fortifications. He wished the House distinctly to understand that in assenting to the second reading of this Bill they were neither approving nor disapproving the policy of the Treaty of Washington, but were merely giving to the people of Canada a cordial expression of that goodwill which the people of Canada richly deserved. He had been sometimes taunted with speaking too warmly on the subject of the Colonies, and attri- buting too high a value to the connection between this country and her colonies. But he had nothing to retract or qualify, and he could not but speak warmly of those who had so often proved their affection to Great Britain. Throughout these proceedings the Canadian people had followed a wise and patriotic course. They had shown an unswerving loyalty to the British Crown and a devoted attachment to British connection. It was not because he believed the material prosperity of Canada would be affected by the proposed guarantee—not because of the value of the gift, but rather as an earnest of our cordial goodwill and kindly feeling to the people of Canada that he recommended this Bill to the House.

By no effort on my part could I put my case against this Bill in a better position than that in which it stands at this moment, after the defence made by my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) is not in his place. In 1867 the then Conservative Government proposed a guarantee of a railway loan for Canada. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire, in moving the Resolution, spoke as follows:—

"not one word would fall from him approving in the abstract of guarantees of colonial loans. He had always thought, and whenever the subject was under consideration, as it had been too often, he had expressed his decided opinion, that they were a feature of the worst possible relations between this country and the colonies, bad enough for this country, but still worse for the interests of the colonies. He sincerely hoped that this colonial guarantee would be the last proposed to Parliament, or if proposed, the last that Parliament would be disposed to grant."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 736.]

The right hon. Gentleman went on to give the most binding pledges on the part of Canada as to the application of the money—pledges of which we since have seen the value. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who opposed the guarantee, said that the chief argument in its support was that we had—

"in some degree debauched the minds of the colonists by being over-ready with our men in defending them, and over-ready with our money in the way of military expenditure. This is all exceedingly true; but how does this prove that we ought to guarantee them £3,000,000 more. It seems to me that the argument goes exactly the contrary way. If we are to teach our colonies self-reliance, and if they are really to undertake their own defence, we should not commence by furnishing them with British credit."—[Ibid. 759.]

After this strong speech the right hon. Gentleman divided the House against the guarantee, but without success. In 1869 an hon. Member rose in this House, and showed in the most conclusive way that in spite of the strong provisions by which the application of the loan had been guarded, the money had been misapplied. Instead of being employed upon the railway, a portion of it had actually been spent in redeeming the debts of the Dominion. The most that the Prime Minister could find to say in defence of the conduct of the Canadian Government was that "the Act of Parliament was not a clear and satisfactory Act of Parliament." A second debate took place upon a similar subject in 1869, on the second reading of the Canada (Rupert's Land) Loan Bill. This Bill was defended by the Government upon the ground that it grew out of negotiations which had begun in 1865. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and myself, in opposing that Bill, said that we did not intend to divide the House provided that we obtained a distinct pledge for the future. We pointed out that the Premier had expressed strong objections to the principle of guaranteeing loans to colonies, and the Premier told the House, in reply, that—

"He did not recede from the expressions which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. He was ready to repeat them …. but, the Government wished to wind up the old system and see the North American colonies make a new start in colonial life; and we could not have extricated ourselves from the vicious system to which he had referred without paying for it. Neither in public nor in private life could one escape the consequences of former errors without some cost. To put an end to the old system once and for all, the Government made arrangements with Canada which bound them to ask Parliament to assist the North American Provinces with the Imperial credit. …. That was not to be a beginning, but an end."—[3 Hansard, cxcviii. 1329–30.]

In 1870 there was another debate upon a Canadian guarantee—the fortification loan—which again was only proposed as part of the arrangement made in 1865, and, in the debate, when a quotation was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1867 against colonial guarantees, the Premier replied that he entirely approved of those views, but that he regarded the fortification loan as part of an old case. So much for the modern history of colonial guarantees, from which it appears that both front benches are deeply pledged to propose no more. Now, Sir, let us look for a moment at what may be said in the abstract of colonial guarantees. We must look at them as though we might some day be called upon to pay the money. We should look at them as reducing our own credit, while they raise that of the colonies concerned. We should look at them as an individual would at a bill that he was asked to back. Each colony can borrow upon those terms to which its own credit entitles it, and when we make use of our credit to assist a colony to borrow on easier terms than its own credit can command, we should remember that we directly encourage extravagance in the colony itself, and, also, that if we are to lend the colonies our credit, they should, on the other hand, take upon them a portion of the interest of our debt. Lord Granville was stating the opinion of the present Government on these guarantees, when, on the 10th of May, 1870, he wrote that the Government did but repeat

"the settled judgment of Parliament in stating their opinion that except for the most special reasons the practice of guaranteeing loans to self-governing colonies is generally injurious to them, and also to the parent State."

From this survey of the history, and examination of the merits of colonial guarantees, we may, I think, assume that, so strong are the arguments against them, that, this new Canadian loan of £3,600,000 will probably be defended, in part at least, as a payment to Canada for services rendered by Canada to us. Let us turn to the Correspondence. In it we find a number of subjects muddled together, which have no conceivable connection. The Canadians state their grievances in reference to the withdrawal of the troops, the Fenian Raids, the trespasses on their Fishing grounds, and the Pacific railway. As for the troops, their withdrawal was contemplated, and discounted, as it were, in the discussions on those previous loans to which I have made allusion. There remain three other points. As to the Fisheries and the Fenian Claims, Canada made complaints against America, which we took upon ourselves to refer to a Commission. There results a Treaty which deals with the Fisheries case. In his despatch of 17th June, 1871, Lord Kimberley shows that the Treaty is a fair one towards Canada, and cuts away from under the feet of the Government one argument which they might have used in support of the guarantee—namely, that it was a payment made to Canada for concessions as to the Fisheries, without other consideration, and for the benefit of England. There is no need that I should go into the arguments by which Lord Kimberley showed that Canada was no loser by the Treaty. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but no one can deny that they are in the despatch—that they bind the Government, and that they force us to believe that the Government does not look upon this guarantee as a payment for concessions on this point. In another despatch Lord Kimberley repeats that the Government remain of the opinion, "that, looked at as a whole, the Treaty is beneficial to the interest of the Dominion." What was the Canadian reply? why, simply this—that they would not accept the Treaty unless we gave them £4,000,000. Lord Kimberley's despatches are long; the Canadian despatches are all short; but Lord Lisgar's despatch of the 22nd of January of last year is a model of brevity—

"He has the honour to enclose a minute of the Canadian Privy Council, which conveys the reply to Lord Kimberley's despatch, and urges the request of an Imperial guarantee to a Canadian loan, not to exceed £4,000,000. This proposal the Council recommend as in their opinion the best mode of adjusting all demands on the score of the Fenian Claims, and of surmounting the difficulties in the way of obtaining the consent of the Canadian Parliament to the Treaty."

What was the answer of the Government? Why, that they would not give £4,000,000, but £2,500,000, or, if the fortification guarantee was surrendered, then £3,600,000, and this on the understanding that Canada abandoned all claims on account of the Fenian Raids. Not a word about the Fisheries—the application for the first time was put wholly upon the Fenian Raids. That is to say, that if Canada had any legitimate claim upon the United States, arising out of the Fenian Raids, we prefer to make it good ourselves rather than ask the United States for the money. Why? Because, if we did not pay, after refusing to ask America, the Canadians would reject the Treaty. That is to say, we are buying our Treaty from Canada, buying it for whatever the peace and quiet we get from it are worth. Now, Sir, it has been maintained that this loan is a loan for the purpose of aiding the general development of Canada, and not a bribe. How can that view be maintained in face of the Canadian despatch of 15th April, 1872, in which Canada states its case as follows:—

"It appears that, on their part, Her Majesty's Government will engage, that, when the Treaty shall have taken effect, by the issue of a proclamation they will propose to Parliament to guarantee a Canadian loan, on the understanding that Canada abandons all claims upon England on account of the Fenian Raids."

I really am at a loss to conceive how it can be said, after the receipt of this despatch, that this guarantee is not the payment of hush money. I refuse to go into detail as to the manner in which the money, when obtained, is to be expended. It does not matter what they do with it. I am told that they intend to spend it on a productive railroad through a howling wilderness, and that much jobbery is connected with the scheme, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock (Mr. Brown) will give the House information upon these points. All that we have to ask ourselves is whether they ought to have the money. The naked fact is this—that you think the Fenian claims fair claims, else you would not venture to ask at all for this money—that these claims, which you think fair claims, you have refused to press, and that you give Canada hush-money to say no more about them. How far are you going to carry this principle? It is because I do not know to what extent the precedent is to be applied that I move the rejection of the Bill.

seconded the Amendment, for reasons stated by the hon. Member for Chelsea, but in addition to those reasons he would point out that this Bill guaranteed, not only the principal, but the interest. It was most improbable that the line on account of which this guarantee was to be given could ever command a remunerative through traffic. There would be three competing lines, one of which was already completed, while the other two were in progress. The land grants in connection with this line were worthless, because the country was without population, and must remain without it. Dividing the line into three principal sections, in all, except the Vancouver section, the line passed through a wild country, where the climate was of a most severe and even frightful character. He spoke from experience of the Red River district—from 300 to 400 miles south of the tract of the proposed line—and even that district would never attract emigrants in any large numbers, because of the severity of its winters and the fearful storms with which it was visited. It had been supposed that there might be a through traffic derived from the port of Quebec; but Quebec was for many months of the year blocked up with ice, and a line there could not successfully compete with American lines, which could run winter and summer. No doubt on the western portion of the line the country was a very much better one; but emigration to that country must come from the seaboard, and could not be developed along such a long line of country by a single railway. In addition to this there were great engineering difficulties to overcome, which must cost much money; and he hoped that the Government would withhold their hands from this guarantee until they saw a chance of it becoming a commercial success.

said, he thought that the Canadian Parliament might be trusted to decide the question whether this line of railway was the best one that could be proposed. He had heard very different descriptions of the country from that just given, and he would remind the House of the evidence given on this subject before the Committee of 1857. He ventured to say that the construction of the line would involve this country in no risk whatever. All we were asked to do was to guarantee the money simply because we could borrow cheaper than Canada could, and the construction of such a line would be most important to the prosperity of the district and the development of its resources. The question ought not to be looked at apart from the great attachment which Canada had shown to this country. Because this was a loan which involved no risk to the people of this country, and because, even if it did involve a risk, it was the interest of the Empire that some sacrifice should be made in order to preserve our relations with our colonies, he would cordially support the second reading of the Bill.

lent the Bill a reluctant support, solely on the ground that it repealed the Canada Defence Loans Act, which authorized a scheme burdensome to Canada, irritating to the United States, compromising to this country, and altogether futile as a plan for the defence of Canada.

said, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill. He believed that nothing could be more important to Canada than the proposed line of communication, of which nature already, by means of water, furnished one-half. No doubt for 500 miles, from Lake Superior to Fort Garry, there was a bad kind of country; but beyond that the country was of a most favourable kind. Further, the political advantages of the railway could not be over-stated.

said, he was glad to see that the House generally appeared to be favourable to the measure; but he felt, at the same time, that the speeches of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment (Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Brown) ought not to pass without a word from him, signifying how entirely the Government sustained this proposal which had been made by his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) on the part of the Dominion of Canada. The question between those who opposed the measure and the Government was capable of being reduced to a very narrow issue. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Mike) described the measure as a scheme for our guaranteeing on behalf of the Dominion of Canada a loan of £3,600,000; but, in so doing, the hon. Baronet was inaccurate, inasmuch as £1,100,000 of that sum represented the amount we had already guaranteed for a loan of money to be expended on military works for the defence of Canada; and the present pro- posal, as far as that sum was concerned, was merely to appropriate it to the construction of works of peace and internal development, instead of military works. As to the expediency of this part of the proposal, he thought there would not be much dispute. The main question in dispute, therefore, was as to the new guarantee of £2,500,000, and he wished to state what the views of the Government with regard to the nature and character of this guarantee were. In the first place, the Government did not think that a vote of the House in favour of the Bill could be taken as implying or conveying any sort of approval on its part of the policy which the Government had pursued with regard to the claims of Canada on America with reference to the Fenian Raids. If the House were to pass this Bill, it would still be open to it to challenge the proceedings of the Government with regard to those claims in any way it pleased. The House might challenge the conduct of the Government in that matter on two grounds—first, it might ask were the Government right in removing the Canadian claims to compensation in respect of the Fenian Raids from the scope of the negotiations at Washington—on which subject up to the present moment the House had expressed no opinion whatever—and, secondly, were the Government right in not having up to the present moment urged upon the United States any pecuniary claim on behalf of Canada in respect of the Fenian Raids, independently of the Treaty of Washington? Those questions it was perfectly open to the House to discuss; but they were in no way connected with or involved in the present proposal. The aim of the present proposal was to place Canada outside entirely any question as to Fenian Raids. Neither had the House anything to do with the former guarantees at the present time. All arguments ad homines founded on the speeches which had been made on former occasions passed innocently over the heads of the Government because they referred to distinctly different matters. The guarantees of 1867, 1869, and 1870, to which the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment referred, were the price which we had had to pay for extricating ourselves from a false and mischievous colonial policy, and those guarantees had most vitally and essentially aided us in getting rid of that policy. This guarantee had nothing to do with the very important question which had been argued by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) and his hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock (Mr. Brown), as to the goodness or the badness of this railway scheme. What they had to look to was the credit of Canada, and all that the nation guaranteed was the credit of Canada. In Canada, where there was an object in binding men together in remote points on the surface of the earth, there was something to be considered beyond the dividend; but the English nation had nothing at all to do with the railway. It was not for the House to question the judgment of the Government of Canada with respect to a great internal undertaking of this kind. He must say, however, parenthetically, that his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham had not taken a true view of that matter. If the Government and people of Canada were disposed to undertake some risk for the purpose of constructing a railway which they thought was a great political and national object, they should rather gain credit and applause at our hands than adverse criticism. It had, commonly been said that this guarantee was a bribe to Canada, or that it was "hush money" to Canada, or a payment to Canada for services rendered. In the view of the Government we had no right to dogmatize on the matter, or to dictate to the Parliament or the Government of Canada in what light they should view it. But he submitted that it was no bribe, no "hush money," and no payment for services rendered. It was not a reward to Canada for her acknowledgment of the Washington Treaty. The Treaty of Washington was recommended by Her Majesty's Government to Canada upon its own merits. They believed it would be most valuable to Canada on its own merits. Her Majesty's Government had never hinted that there was any connection between this guarantee and the Washington Treaty further than this—that Her Majesty's Government were not willing to enter into any arrangement except a complete one; and, consequently, it was their opinion that the whole matter as between Canada and the United States should be disposed of. Now, what was this guarantee which Her Majesty's Government proposed to Parliament? It was the acknowledgment and the liquidation of a just debt. That was a debt which Her Majesty's Government proposed to liquidate in the form of money; but the Government of Canada represented to them that if the liquidation were put in the form of a guarantee it would be more acceptable and more beneficial to Canada. They had acknowledged the debt, and they would have to pay it; and the question was, whether the House of Commons would adopt and affirm that portion of the proceedings of the Government? Was the debt a just one? In the view of the Government it was clear that Canada suffered pecuniary losses from the Fenian Raids. Did she so suffer in consequence of anything she did or omitted to do? On the contrary, she suffered exclusively and entirely on account of her connection with England, and we had acknowledged this as constituting a just claim against us. Therefore, this question had nothing whatever to do with colonial policy. He therefore hoped that the House would consider the proposal of the Government to be a right one, and as such he hoped the Bill would meet with approval.

said, they had been told that Canada ought to judge for herself upon the subject of defence; but, in his opinion, this was decidedly an Imperial question. He hoped the report of this debate, when it reached Canada and our other colonies, would show that the mother country had a regard for all her colonies, and would inspire a wish in the colonies for the existence of a a confederation in which the colonies would pay their fair share of the burdens which belonged not merely to the mother country, but to the colonies also.

moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, his object being to secure for this Bill the mature consideration which its importance deserved, and to save it from being hustled through the House on a day when it was known long before that many Members would not be present to discuss it. The Bill raised a number of most important points, and ought to be well considered in its details, which could only be done by a Select Committee. The Chief Secretary for Ireland proposed to insert in the Bill one of the most extraordinary clauses ever seen. The real meaning of that clause was that this Valuation Bill should increase the property of landlords for the sake of taxation, while leaving tenants altogether untouched in that way. That was very like making fish of one and fowl of another. The proposal of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) was not a practicable one, and, tried by the light of right and wrong, it was iniquitous.

in seconding the Amendment, said, he thought he never read a Bill which better deserved to be referred to a Select Committee. If it were passed in its present shape it would give rise to much litigation, and the Judges themselves would be puzzled to interpret it. He held in his hand several Acts of Parliament which this Bill would affect. Repealing some 48 clauses and retaining 17. Even the smallest bit of patronage was not to be left under the Bill to those who were responsible for the peace and tranquillity of Ireland; but the whole was to be centred in two or three Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury, one of whom, no doubt, would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whom the people of Ireland placed the most implicit confidence. [A laugh.] Was this, he asked, a day on which such a Bill as this ought to be brought forward—a day on which the great body of the Members of the House of Commons were taking a holiday? The object of the Government was to get the Bill passed in a thinly-attended House; and it reminded him that the 17 Vict. which transferred powers always previously exercised by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, must have been smuggled through the House at a time of the night when most of the Members had left and were in their beds. This Bill involved a departure from the system of valuation which had been in operation since 1826, and he must enter his emphatic protest against proceeding with so important a measure at this advanced stage of the Session. Under the clause of the noble Lord referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Kavanagh) the tenant would have to pay his proportion of any addition that might be made to the taxation of the country, and the clause was naked justice, without it the tenant would lose a large portion of those rights conferred on him by the Land Act. The Bill raised important questions, similar to those arising on the Bill which the President of the Local Government Board had introduced with respect to England. It was doubtful whether the English Bill could be passed this year; and instead of attempting to legislate for Ireland at this period of the Session it would be better to wait, and meanwhile have this measure properly considered by a Select Committee. There had been three or four Select Committees appointed lately, on no one of which had an Irish Member been appointed; and, for his part, he should have been glad if he had the opportunity of even being a listener on one of those Committees. There were many points which required consideration in legislating for Ireland upon this subject. According to the present law no re-valuation could be made without the assent of the Grand Jury of the county, but that provision was left out of this Bill, and it was now proposed that a re-valuation might be made at the end of 14 years at the will of the Commissioners of the Treasury. He objected to giving to the Commissioners of the Treasury a power of this kind, which might upset the relations between landlord and tenant. He had placed Amendments on the Paper with the object of restoring this Bill as far as possible to the footing of the Acts which it was proposed to repeal; but he hoped the Government would not persevere with the Bill.

inquired for what reason this Bill had been brought in. A hint which had fallen from the Secretary of the Treasury suggested that a grievance existed in the North of Ireland; but, for his part, he believed no other reason was to be assigned for its introduction than the necessity of an increased flow of money into the Treasury, caused by the policy of the Government which had stinted that flow lately. Not a single Grand Jury had asked for a measure of this kind. He had opposed the second reading of the Bill, and he now cordially supported the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Kavanagh). It was impossible to deal with the details of this measure in a Committee of the Whole House. Not only could the details of the Bill be best considered in a Select Committee, but it would be a waste of time to discuss them in the House, particularly as it was unlikely the Bill could pass this Session, and many Irish Members must soon absent themselves from Parliament in order to discharge other duties. He hoped that the Government would consider the question, but not as a party one.

said, he could not understand why there need be separate legislation for Ireland on this subject until he discovered in this Bill a clause the introduction of which into the English Bill, the Government, with their dead-weight supporters, stoutly resisted; and then he inferred the reason for dealing separately with Ireland was that, if anything went wrong there, there would be a row. He asked why the Government had left stock-in-trade out of this Bill, and, though he opposed the reference of the English Bill to a Select Committee, he found so little knowledge of the subject displayed in Committee of the Whole House that he would vote for referring this Bill to a Select Committee.

said, that one reason for dealing separately with Ireland was that it had possessed for a long time a system of valuation superior to that of England; and, as its system of valuing machinery worked extremely well, he had, at the unanimous request of the Irish Members, consented to omit the stock-in-trade clause. The Government had no intention to deal with this as a party question. He did not see why a Committee of the Whole House should not dispose satisfactorily of the Amendments of which Notice had been given. He failed to gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) reasons for sending this Bill to a Select Committee; because all those hon. Members who had given Notice of Amendments on the Bill were in their places, and therefore there was no reason why the subjects contained in the Bill on which there was a difference of opinion should not be discussed at once. A great objection to sending the Bill before a Select Committee was that all the points in it that might be settled upstairs would have to be re-discussed in that House when the Bill came down again. Only those measures which involved dry and technical details which could not be conveniently discussed in that House ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and therefore he hoped that the House would consent to go into Committee upon the Bill.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baxter) had done his best on the part of the Government to meet the conflicting wishes of various Irish Members. It was difficult to discover what subjects should be referred to a Select Committee; but they had found recently that when the mistakes or the peccadilloes of a Government Department were brought before the House the Government thought these were proper subjects to go to a Select Committee. When the question whether a contract had been imprudently made by a Minister, or whether a great Government Board had acted justly, was brought before the House, some right hon. Gentleman behind the Treasury bench rose and proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He (Mr. Lewis) thought that these were subjects eminently fit for discussion and decision in the House. This Bill, however, involved a number of questions of dry and technical detail, and these, he contended, were matters which could be best discussed by a Select Committee. He trusted that on this occasion the Members for Ireland would be found voting together, and that the matter would be referred to a Select Committee.

joined with the hon. Member who spoke last, in expressing his obligations to the Secretary of the Treasury for the desire he had manifested on all previous occasions, to convenience the Irish Members, but he regretted that the Bill had been brought forward that day, when so many were unavoidably absent. He was perfectly convinced that English Members did not understand the bearings of this Bill. For the last few weeks the House had been engaged, day after day, in most careful investigations and interesting discussions as to the principles on which certain classes of property should be rated in England. The principles on which mines, woods, game, fisheries, and other classes of property should be valued for rating purposes had all been most carefully considered and exhaustively discussed, and he fancied that if any hon. Member had got up on the Treasury bench and suggested that all this was superfluous, and that the House ought to pass a simple clause leaving the whole of this matter to the discretion of a Treasury official, such a suggestion would be scouted with the utmost contempt. Yet this was what was done in Ireland. This was what was proposed to be continued under this Bill. There was not one single clause in this Bill regulating the principle on which mines, woods, fisheries, or railways were to be valued. All was left to the discretion of the Commissioner of valuation, who was a Government officer under the Treasury. Such a proposal as this would not be listened to for a moment, if applied to England. His objections of the proposal were not mere theoretical objections. He wished to point out how this system had worked in the past. At the commencement of the sitting that day he had asked a question with respect to the valuation of one railway in Ireland, and what were the facts elicited? That railway had been valued in 1861 at £28,000. The next year it was reduced, without any appeal, to less than half, to little over £14,000, and at that low figure it remained till 1872, although in 1865 it had been leased to another company at an annual rent, free of all charges, of £36,000. In 1871, an individual ratepayer complained and gave notice of appeal, and then the Commissioner of valuation raised the valuation from £14,000 first to £17,000, and the ratepayer still objecting, subsequently in the same year, and, of course, on the same data to £27,000. His right hon. Friend admitted all these facts, and he further admitted that the present Commissioner of valuation was a leading shareholder in that company. It was true that in 1862, when the valuation was reduced, he was not nominally Commissioner, but he was practically so, as he was the chief superintendent under Sir Richard Griffith, who had so many other things to attend to that practically the valuation service was conducted by the then General Superintendent, now the Commissioner. He quoted this to show the abuses which had arisen in Ireland, and which were possible under this Bill, and he regretted as much as his right hon. Friend the necessity for referring to them, but he felt that it was monstrous to entrust such powers to any Government official, and that if the measure were thoroughly understood in England it would not be tolerated for a moment. He had many other objections to this Bill, which he had stated on other occasions, and he believed that many of its details would be best settled in a Select Committee. He did not wish to pretend to the House that he was a Friend to the Bill—he would gladly see it beaten; but, at the same time, he believed that reference to a Select Committee would not retard, but rather hasten its progress, whilst he hoped it would very materially aid in improving its details. He, therefore, cordially supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlow.

reminded the House that a Select Committee had already sat the entire Session and half of another Session upon the question connected with this Bill. It appeared to him that it would be a better course to postpone legislation altogether upon this subject until another Session than to refer it now to a Select Committee, which at that period of the year would be an indirect mode of shelving the matter. He did not wish to press on a measure of this kind; but considering the steadily increasing scale of prices, he was of opinion that the longer a valuation was delayed the higher it would be. There wore many points in the Bill which a Select Committee could not decide, and which must be referred back to that House. He would remind the House that under the provisions of the Bill the new Jury Act would become inoperative, as it would be the very same class of persons who would be summoned to serve who were summoned at present, as the man whose holding was now valued at £20 would have it then valued at £30. The Government would, he believed, have very little difficulty with the Bill were it not for one clause of a very extraordinary character, which had been introduced by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and which was to the effect that however much the valuation of property might be increased in Ireland it should, so far as the Irish Land Act was concerned, remain perfectly stationary. On looking at the Act, however, and referring to the discussions upon it in that House, he was prepared to maintain that the Government were under no obligation not to alter the valuation of property in Ireland in reference to it, while he was of opinion that there might be a valuation in the interests of the whole country as soon as possible.

said, he could not understand why hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland should make any objection to the system of rating and taxation which prevailed in that country. See the difference between the system of taxing which prevailed in Scotland and Ireland. Opposition to the Bill had been made on the plea that it would have the effect of increasing the valuation of property in Ireland. There was a valuation in Scotland every year, and the effect had been to increase the valuation of property every 12 months. He wished to know why Ireland should be exempted from such a natural consequence? In Scotland a blank form was sent round to every proprietor of land and tenant occupier of land at a certain period in every year, and if any person to whom these forms were addressed were found to make false Returns, they laid themselves open to the infliction of very serious penalties. And then, again, see the difference between what was proposed in the Bill before the House and the law of Scotland with regard to drainage works. In Scotland, as soon as it was discovered that money raised for drainage purposes realized 5 or 6 per cent, such money was immediately subjected to income tax. By the Bill before the House, all such property would be exempted from income tax for a certain number of years. Why should this difference be made between Scotland and Ireland? And further, see the difference made between Scotland and Ireland with regard to the payment of income tax on account of landed property. In Ireland, if a gentleman had £1,000 a-year from landed property, he was rated at only £800. If a gentleman had landed property in Scotland realizing £1,000 a-year, he had to pay income tax on the whole £1,000. Why should such differences as these exist in the United Kingdom? Now that the Government had agreed to give up the privilege it possessed of having Government buildings free from taxation, it was nearly time that these exemptions which Ireland possessed with regard to taxation should be also done away with. The fact was that all such exemptions should be abolished, and the whole United Kingdom placed on an equality with regard to the payment of taxes. Under the existing system a practical injustice was done to one part of the United Kingdom, to the advantage of another. As a step in the right direction, he would give his support to the Bill now before the House.

said, he thought the Bill in its original shape a good one, and he had no wish to delay its passing; but he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), in order to give the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland an opportunity of reconsidering the very monstrous proposition to which reference had just been made.

said, the Bill required that fair and legitimate consideration which could only be given to it in a Select Committee, and he hoped that the Government would accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlow.

said, he was aware that a great deal of the opposition offered to the Bill at that stage was owing, as they had been told, to a clause which he had placed on the Paper; but he could not admit that that clause deserved to be described, as it had been, as monstrous and unjust. If the House had gone into Committee, he thought he should have been able to show that the clause was a just one. It was perfectly well known when the Irish Land Act was passed that the valuation of Ireland, although very unequal as between one part of the country and another, was in a very great portion of Ireland very much below the letting value. The operation of the present Bill without the clause of which he bad given Notice, would be to remove a very large class of tenants from the position in which they were deliberately placed by the House three years ago; and as the Government and the House had been most unwilling to disturb the settlement arrived at by the Land Act in favour either of the landlord or of the tenant until they had seen its fair working, his clause would correct what in practice was a serious alteration of the Land Act. The Government, however, could not conceal from themselves the importance of the significant opposition coming from Gentlemen opposite, who, by reinforcing the original opponents of the measure sitting on his side, might prevent any reasonable chance of its passing through a Committee of the Whole House this Session. The Government had not thought the Bill one that could with any great advantage be referred to a Select Committee; but it must be admitted that the ingenuity of hon. Members that afternoon had shown that any conceivable number of points might be raised for discussion in Committee. Under those circumstances the Government would propose to adjourn the present debate for a couple of days or so, in the course of which they would endeavour to ascertain whether it would be possible to appoint a Select Committee which would go through the Bill this Session. If so, they would accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh). If not, they would not attempt to make any further progress with the measure this Session.

in reference to the noble Lord's remark about the ingenuity of the opposition offered to the Bill, said, there was every disposition on his—the Opposition—side of the House to do every justice to the merits of the measure, and go through its details with a view to its passing this Session.