further, but after the opinion expressed by his right hon. Friend, he should not oppose the Motion. Question put, and agreed to. agitation, every three years certainly, with respect to the amount at which they were to be assessed to their local burdens. He believed there was quite as much irritation caused by the worry of Resolved, That an humble Address be pre- these assessments as by the payment of sented to Her Majesty, as followeth : Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Sir Samuel Martin, knight, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, and one of the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the Ilouse of Commons, that corrupt practices did prevail at the last Election for the City of Norwich, and that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices did extensively prevail at the said Election. We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, "An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointment of George Morley Dowdeswell, esquire, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Horatio Mansfield, esquire, Barrister at Law, and Robert John Biron, esquire, Barrister at Law, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices. Address to be communicated to The Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto. VALUATION OF PROPERTY (METROPOLIS) BILL. [BILL 12.] (Mr. Goschen, Mr. Arthur Peel, Mr. Ayrton.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Goschen.) MR. HENLEY said, he had no intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill, but he thought the principles laid down in it were so serious that it was well to make some observation upon it. No doubt there was a very cona very considerable impatience-he would not say whether it was ignorant or intelligentof the present system of local taxation, not to say of Imperial taxa tionalso, but if that impatience was felt now, this Bill would multiply it a great deal more, if the view he took of its probable effects was correct. He could conceive nothing more likely to worry the ratepayers than the fact that there would be a continued the burden. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would bear him out in that, as he must remember the agitation which existed when the amount of the income tax had been uncertain. That Bill proposed an entire change in the mode of assessment. It endeavoured ⚫ to set up a common base for the income tax, the house tax, and local burdens. He thought the House was agreed that in so far as local burdens were concerned thé great thing they wanted was equalityfairness and equality, so that all persons should be taxed alike. In regard to the Queen's taxes, on the contrary, the GoVernment wanted the utmost farthing that could be raised. If a man paid a very extravagant rent for his house for any particular purpose of his own, it was quite right that the person who received that rent should pay every sixpence in the pound, or whatever the amount might be. If, however, the principle were once to be applied to the assessment of the local rates, it would be more difficult than at present, if it would not be impossible, to obtain equality. He asked the House to consider for a moment how it was attempted in this Bill to carry out the new system. They had got a very complex machinery set up by it, but it resolved itself into this -that the assessment which was to be virtually for local taxation and for the Queen's taxes at one and the same time of taxes, with an appeal only to a Gowas really to be made by the surveyor vernment nominee. He could not say whether the system was a right or a wrong one; but it was at least entirely novel, and a complete subversion of every principle that had attained heretofore in regard to the assessment of local rates and taxes. and taxes. The machinery proposed by the Bill was this-In the first place, the overseer was to make a valuation list; that valuation list was to be sent within a given time to the surveyor of taxes, and to a body now to be called into existence, called the Assessment Committee. To this Assessment Committee persons who thought themselves not properly treated, might appeal; but the Committee was bound by the statute-what duction of not more than 10 per cent ever valuation the overseer might have made to put the assessment at the figure which the surveyor of taxes sent to them. A ratepayer, moreover, had only seven days' notice within which to prove the negative of what the surveyor of taxes had put on the list. Was it reasonable that a man, in such a place as London, should be required to prove a negative of that kind within seven days? He could only do it by the aid of surveyors, and everybody who knew what conflicting opinions surveyors expressed as to valuations, would agree with him that this space of time was neither fair nor sufficient. That, however, was not all. If the parties were not satisfied with the decision of the Committee they might have another appeal to a new officer, to be paid partly by the ratepayers and partly by the Crown, but he would be the direct nominee of the Crown, and would be subject to no engagement, for he was not to be sworn to do justice between the Crown and the ratepayers. In this case also the appellant would have to prove the negative, instead of the Crown being required to prove the affirmative of the assessment, thus involving him in further trouble and expense. He contended that this machinery was not only complex, but unnecessary. Why, if they were determined to take this principle, should they not adopt the simple course of letting the surveyor of taxes take upon himself the whole labour and expense of making the assessment, and give a proper and fair appeal against the assessment? What was the use of imposing upon the overseers all this trouble, and giving the ratepayer an appeal first to the Assessment Committee, and then to the nominee of the Crown? He could not conceive that such a course was likely MR. W. H. SMITH said, that as one to relieve that impatience of taxation of the metropolitan Members, he must which was now so largely felt. How trouble the House with a few observawould this work? There was another tions in respect to the measure. little addition to the matter, and that hoped the President of the Poor Law was that there should be in the case of Board (Mr. Goschen) would let the House certain classes a scale fixed upon which know precisely what it was doing in the differences between the rateable agreeing to the second reading of the value and the gross income should be Bill. It was a Bill full of provisions of calculated. The house tax, as they all very great importance, which were new knew, commenced at rents of about £20 to the metropolis, and which had excited a year. In the proposed classification great interest and some alarm. Under houses under £20 a year were to be put those circumstances the representative into a separate class, and to be allowed bodies of the metropolis, the several a deduction of 25 per cent from the gross vestries, had expressed a strong desire value, whilst above that amount a de- that the second reading of the Bill should He 21 sion. Valuation of Property MR. GOSCHEN said, he should have not be pressed at that time. He believed, however, that the great majority of those given the assurance desired by the hon. bodies were very strongly in favour of Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. a common basis of rating, and were Smith) when he moved the second readanxious to arrive at some settlement of iug-that in assenting to that Motion the question by which equal justice no one would pledge himself to the demight be done to the different parishes tails of the measure; but he thought it in the metropolis, by an arrangement better to postpone that explanation to which would be common to all. If it the end of the debate, because, if he was understood that nothing more than stated it at the beginning, he could not this principle of a common basis of rat- now reply. He cheerfully acceded to ing, which might be arrived at in Com- the wish expressed, that if the House mittee, was implied by an assent to the should now read the Bill a second time, second reading of the Bill, he appre- it would be understood that what the hended that there would be very little House had agreed to was the general opposition to it upon the present occa- principle that equalization of assessment But there would be very consi- was most desirable, without committing Of course, there would be derable opposition, no doubt, raised to themselves to any of the details of the the mode by which that principle might measure. be sought to be arrived at when the Bill considerable difference as to the best was discussed hereafter. A strong feel-mode of arriving at the result which all ing had been expressed in some quarters desired. He believed there was a gethat the property tax return was the proper basis of taxation both for local and for Imperial purposes. He would not venture to say that this was an opinion that was generally entertained, but it was at least a point from which discussion might very well start, and from which some arrangement might be made. He would, therefore, venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would give them an assurance that, in agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, they did not bind themselves to anything more than the general principles upon which it was founded. MR. LOCKE said, that strong repre- neral feeling that it was most important MR. LIDDELL said, he regretted that they had not had an opportunity to discuss this Bill, which involved large and extensive changes in the mode of assessment. He feared that the House was sliding into rather an inconvenient course by assenting to any definition of the principle of the Bill, for it seemed to him that the mode by which they were to obtain a common basis of value really constituted the principle of the Bill. The country had as yet had no opportunity of considering the important changes proposed to be made in the mode of assessment by this measure, and therefore he deprecated the House giving a general assent to the principles involved in the measure, by reading the Bill now a second time, with the idea of altering or rejecting all or any of its provisions in Committee. Motion agreed to. majority of the Members who had been nominated to serve upon this Committee appeared to have been taken from the front Benches on either side of the House. He found that of the Conservative Members, six had formerly been Ministers. It would have been more satisfactory if the list had contained more names of Members below the Gangway, who took an interest in this subject. He should wish that the name of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) should be added to the list. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he hoped the House would give him credit for having taken the utmost pains to form the Committee impartially from both sides of the House, and from those who took an interest in the question. He was aware that it was desirable to have a Member from the City on the Committee, as the Bill materially affected the Bill read a second time, and committed interests of the companies; and, with for To-morrow. ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL. MR. W. E. FORSTER moved that the Select Committee on Endowed Schools Bill do consist of twenty-one Mem bers. MR. CRAWFORD said, it was always an ungracious thing to object to the composition of a Committee; but this Committee had raised much opposition on the part of those whom he represented. Perhaps there was no constituency in the kingdom that was more likely to be affected by this Bill than that which he represented, and yet there was not a single representative for the City whose name appeared on the Committee. It was true his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) had asked him to be a Member, and that he had declined on account of the pressing nature of other duties. But he had a Colleague, an Alderman of the City, and a member of more than one of the City companies; a man of great knowledge of the subject, and who was therefore well able to take part in the labours of the Committee. He therefore gave Notice, that he would to-morrow move that the number of Members be twenty-two, and that his hon. Colleague (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) be added to the Committee. MR. COLLINS remarked that the great that view, he had asked his hon. Friend (Mr. Crawford) to be on the Committee. He would have proposed another name, but he had been led to believe that the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory) was closely connected with the companies of the City. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), he must be aware that ten Members were taken from his side of the House. MR. COLLINS replied, that although such was the case, still the greater number were taken from above the Gangway. Motion agreed to. Select Committee to consist of Twenty-one Members:-Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Sir JOHN COLERIDGE, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. ACLAND, Mr. MOWBRAY, Mr. JAMES HOWARD, Mr. ADDERLEY, Mr. BUXTON, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. Sir JOHN HAT, Mr. PARKER, Mr. GEORGE GREMELLY, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. WALTER, GORY, Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Mr. JOHN TALBOT, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. DILLWYN, and Mr. GOLDNEY:-Five to be the quorum. REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868," as relates to the approval by meetings of incorporated Railway Companies of Bills and Certificates for conferring further powers on those Companies, stated, in explanation, that ill consequences had arisen from the operation of one clause in the Bill of last year, by which smaller companies were prevented from coming before Parliament where larger companies who had an interest in their line wished to oppose them. He had consulted with the Chairmen of Committees in both Houses, and at their instance he had brought forward the present Bill. Motion agreed to. Bill to repeal so much of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868," as relates to the approval by meetings of incorporated Railway Companies of Bills and Certificates for conferring further powers on those Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LEFEVRE and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 62.] BRIDGWATER ELECTION. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: "Most Gracious Sovereign, "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Sir Colin Blackburn, knight, one of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, and one of the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the House of Commons, that there is reason to believe that bribery extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Bridgwater. "We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' by the appointment of William Forsyth, esquire, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Thomas Chisholm Anstey, esquire, Barrister at Law, and Charles Edward Coleridge, esquire, Barrister at Law, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices." Address to be communicated to The Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that after the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy) on the Norwich case, it would not be necessary for him to go into the subject at any length. The right hon. Gentleman said that whenever a learned Judge reported in terms of the Act that corrupt practices had prevailed, the House ought to act on the opinion of the Judge and issue a Commission. In this case the learned Judge had reported in terms of the Act that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices did extensively prevail at the time of the last election. The case was very similar to that of Norwich, except that, in this case, the bribery was exercised on behalf of the Liberal candidates, though the Judge reported that there was no reason to implicate them in the bribery. The learned Judge, in his summing up, said the evidence had satisfied him that there was a portion of the electors going about the town, and making inquiries whether anything was going; whether any stuff was going, and so on; and he was further satisfied that hopes were held out to them that, if anything was going, those who voted early would be paid the same as those who voted later. The consequence was that, while only seventyfour votes were polled for Mr. Westrop, the Conservative candidate, between one and four, the votes on the Liberal side rose from 465 to 731 during the same period, and the learned Judge added it was impossible to resist the conclusion that these numbers were procured by bribery. He (the Attorney General) must add that Bridgwater was an old offender against the bribery laws; that it had been reported on by more than one Committee of the House; and that one Committee reported they had reason to believe bribery did extensively prevail. He hoped, therefore, the House would accede to his Motion. |