The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-06 00:00:00

THE PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.

Sir G. GREY gave notice of the further postponement
of this bill from the 11th until the 18th inst.
THE LISBURN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The CHAIRMAN brought up the report of the com-
mittee, to the effect that they had adjourned until to-mor-
row, in consequence of the house last evening not having
consonted to the motion for the exemption of Mr. Stirling
from further attendance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was no doubt
the question raised by his hon. friend the member for
Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) last evening was very im-
portant. Having stated the position In which the question
stood, he suggested that the proper course would be to
accept the excuse of the hr,n. member for Perthshire (Mr.
Stirling) for non-attendance, and to allow the committee to
Meet. A suggestir:a might then be made to them to the
„stion had been raised as to their competency
(1
Si!' and tllen the matter could be referred to the house
,
c;.3. the report which the committee would present.
S.lr IL CAIRNS said that this was a subject which re-
quired great deliberation, in order to avoid a collision with
the other House of Parliament, and with courts of law.
After some observations from Mr. HENLEY.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL denied that there was
Any legal question involved in this question.
Some farther discussion ensued in which Mr. Hardy,
Mr. Lygon, Mr. Forster, Mr. M'Donough, Sir G. Grey.
31r. Paull, Mr. Ayrt on, Mr. M, Smith, and Mr, Clarke,
took part.

Lord STANLEY said that the house was evidently in a
difficulty from the novelty of the circumstances which had
occurred, and he suggested as an amendment that the dis-
cwsion should be adjourned until that day six months,
which would of necessity suspend the functions of the corn•
mittee and enable the house to come to a proper decision on
the subject.
Mr. WALPOLE objected to the proposition of his noble
friend (Lord Stanley), which, he contended, would have the
effect of increasing instead of ditninishinr; the difficulty,
and suggested that the committee should be allowed to
COTO to a decision, which could then be discussed, and so
the whole question of the functions of the house in respect
to committees be determined.
The ATTORNEY •CIENERAL also objected to the
course proposed by the noble lord, as superseding the act of
Parliament, and contended that the method he (the Attor-
ney-General) proposed was the proper means of meeting the
Case.

After a few words from blr. ADAIR,
Lord STANLEY withdrew his amendment.
The original motion out of which the discussion arose—
namely, that Mr. Stirling's excuse for non-::ttendance on
the committee on, the 22d nit, should be received—was

adopted, which, in fact, carried out the suggestion of the

Attorney-General.
MAILS FROM SOUTHAMPTON AND B

In reply to Mr. BERKELEY,
Mr. F. PEEL said that there was no intention to make
any alteration at present in the departure of tut mails from
Southampton; but the Government were open to any offers
that might be made on the subject.

THE SAXON.
Colonel SYKES asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, whether he could give any information to
the house of the results of the reference to the American

Government respecting the seizure of the Saxon, and the

conduct of Lieutenant Donegan.

Mr. LAYARD said that her Majesty's consul at New
York had reported that the vessel and cargo had been re-
stored to the owners without expense, but that the question

of salvage had been reserved. He believed that Lieut.

Donegan was to be tried.

DISMISSAL OF MR. MORELL.
Lord R. CECIL asked the Vice President of the Council

if he would state to the house the grounds upon which Mr.
Morel' had been dismissed from the office of her Majesty's
inspector ?
Mr. LOWE considered it would not be fair to the gentle-

man in question to make an ex parte statement ; but if the
noble lord would make a motion for the production of the
correspondence that led to his dismissal, it would be laid

t,n the table:

PUBLIC LANDS AND BUILDINGS (LOCAL
RATES).
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS called attention to the ex-
emption from local taxation now claimed on account of pro-
perty in the occupation of Government departments, and

moved that all lands and buildings used and occupied for
public purposes should be assessed to local rates, and pay
rates accordingly,

ARMY ESTIMATES.

In reply to a question,
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he would bring
in the Army Estimates when the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer made his financial statement.
PUBLIC LANDS AND BUILDINGS (LOCAL
RATE S).

Mr. Alderman SALOISIONS rose to call attention to the
exemption from local taxation now claimed on account of
property in the occupation of Government departments, and
to move, "That all lands and buildings used and occupied
for public purposes should be assessed to local rates, and
pay rates accordingly." He took the cases of barracks and
dockyards, established sometimes in small parishes, and
paying no rates. At Deptford, where the parish consisted
of 80 acres, the dockyard occupied 40, and never contributed
anything to the poor rates. The people paid for police, the
expense of lunatics, and for the construction of gaols, the
Government not rendering any assistance. He showed that
the county rates had increased from £218,000 in 1792 to
£2,218,000 in 1862, and maintained it was not fair that one
part of the country should be taxed for another. The hon
member adverted at some length to what his constituents,
the inhabitants of Greenwich, considered the unfair treat-
ment they had received from the Government in the matter
of poor rates, being placed in a different category to other
parishes in which Government property was situated. Ad-
' vetting then to the general question, he expressed a decided
opinion that parishes in which Government establishments
were situated derived no benefit whatever from the presence
of those establishments ; that the presence of troops in large
numbers largely increased the poor rates and police rates ;
and that if the ground occupied by barracks and such esta •
blishnaents were covered by private building, the area of
rating would be largely increased. He thought a fair claim
had been made out for Government paying poor rate, and
he hoped that they would assent to the motion.
Mr. HANKEY objected to the principle and the terms

of the motion. lie differed entirely from the committee of
1858, and regretted that they should have come to any
such resolution as they had done. If that resolution was
carried out to any extent it would involve very heavy
and unnecessary expenditure by the country. The build-
ings which it was proposed by the resolution to tax were

for general and useful purposes, and benefited the localities
in which they were situated, and on those grounds he ob-
jected entirely to the motion.
Mr. S. BOOTH said that it would be impossible for the
Government to take the same line of argument as the hon,

gentleman who had just sat down, because they had already
given up the whole question. The late Sir G. C. Lewis had
concurred in the recommendations of the committee of 1858,
and to a certain extent carried them out. After quoting in-
stances in which Government had paid compensation to

different parishes for the non-rating of public establish-
ments, he referred to the change of policy of the Treasury
in this respect. Having admitted the principle, he thought
the Government were bound to frame certain general prin-
ciples which should guide their conduct in future, and so
relieve the ratepayers from the great uncertainty in which
they were now placed.
Mr. W. MARTIN showed how prejudicially the Govern-
ment occupation affected the ratepayers of Rochester, and
expressed a hope that they would reconsider their decision
in regard to compensation for the non-rating of their estab-
lishments.

Mr. F. PEEL said that the Government did not contend
for the assertion in its full extent of the right of Govern-
ment property to be exempted from local rateage, because
they had for some years obtained from Parliament an annual
vote, which was applied as contributions to certain parishes
in respect to Government property. In those parishes,
therefore, they did pay to a certain extent what they would
have to pay supposing the Government property to be
liable to rating. Circumstances at the present day, though
they did not raise the question of the:propriety of exempting
Government property, justified the Government in making
exceptions in the application of that principle. There was
no doubt that Government property was more extensive than
it had been formerly, while local rates, on account of drain-
age and other undertakings, had very much increased ; but
while it might be right that the principle, Of exemption from
rating should be suspended in certain, cases, he did not con-
sider they ought to go to the oth'dr extreme, and say that all
Government property shoulszi pay rates, just as if it were
private property • He diva not think that any property now
in the possession of the Government ought to be made liable
to rates, because, 'when a great proportion of the property in
a parish had for a considerable time been exempted from
rater, the remaining property in the parish had been bought
or rented with a full knowledge of the circumstances, and
allowance had been made for the fact that the rates were
levied on a smaller area than the whole of the parish. It
PM also right that such Government property as might be
liable to rates should be assessed according to its value at
the time when it was acquired by the Government, and not
aocording to its improved value. Shoeburyness was a good
illustration of this. About one-third of the land in that
parish is occupied by the Government, who consequently
pay one-third of the rates. But the Government have ex-
pended in buildings in that parish upwards of £lOO,OOO, and
if they were rated life private property no less that:.
sixths of the re,Aes would be paid by the Gover.lim„t. He
would set forth to the house the plan adapted in applying
the einuej grant of Parliament. 'r...ne property to which it
7,rts applied consisted of two :sasses. First, where parishes
made application in res:pect of a large amount of Government
property within +Lew, and where a large resident population
was thereby iorought into the neighbourhood. In such cases
it Walk conceded that the Government establishments added
to the charges on the parish, and the Government therefore,
agreed to contribute to the rates, and—as the line must be
drawn somewhere—it was drawn at one-sixth of the whole
amount of the assessment of the parish. That payment was
to be viewed as a composition in lieu of rates generally.
Then, again, the Government was willing to proceed upon
the principle of indemnifying parishes against actual
loss. In the case of the new barracks at Chelaea, for
example, the Government had purchased twelve acres of
land, which formerly were rated to the pariah, and it was
considered that the parish was entitled to continue to receive
from the Government the same sum which it had received
in respect of the property before it was acquired by the
Government. He wished to remind the house that the
exemption from rating of Government property was net
granted by statute, but arose foom the circumstance that it
was not beneficially occupied. The recommendation of the
committee was that all buildings used and occupied by any
persons for any purposes whatever, should be deprived of
any immunity they might enjoy in consequence of there
being no beneficial occupation. (Hear.) A bill was intro-
duced for the purpose of giving effect to that recommenda-
tion, but it encountered so much opposition that it did not
proceed to a second reading. In conclusion, he expressed a
hope that Coe house would not agree to the motion.
Sir J, ELPHINSTONE believed the reason why the
bill 4,,0 which allusion had been made did not reach a second
reading was, not the opposition it met with, but owing to
the promise made by the Government to carry out the re-
commendations of the committee. The present resolution
went no further than justice demanded, and ha should
therefore give it his support.
Mr. LOCKE said that when the committee was moved
for he proposed that an addition shouldbe made to the terms
of the reference, to the effect that all public institutions and
buildings should be included. Why was one rule to be laid
down for the Government and another for the public at
large ? With respect to the committee of 1858, the right
honk member for Wiltshire had brought in a bill founded
upon the recommendations of that committee, that all pro-
berty of whatever description should be rated to the poor,
and bear all other burdens equally. He was sure the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last man in the
world, after having tried to bring all public charities within
the scope of taxation, to say that this principle should not
be Applied to all public institutions and buildings alike. For
his own part he could see no inconvenience in applying
such a principle.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
understood it was not at first the intention of the hon. mem-
ber fur Greenwich to divide the house upon his motion; but
as the hon. member had changed his purpose, he wished to
call attention to the true state of the question upon which
they were to divide. Nothing could be more different than
the recommendation of the committee of 1858 and the pro-
posal of the hon. member. The principle of the hon. and
learned member for Southwark he could understand. That
hon. gentleman laid down the proposition that all buildings
and institutions without exception, which would include
churches and dissenting chapels, should be alike rated for
parochial purposes. The hon, member, by way of compli-

meat, claimed his support to that proposition on the ground
of his having advocated the taxation of the public charities
of the country. But he thought the reception which his
proposal for rating charities met with from hon. gentlemen
on the other side of the house, and from many gentlemen
advocating popular principles on this side, was not of such
an encouraging character as to induce the house to commit
itself to the principles of the hon. member for Greenwich.
(Hear, and laughter.) The hon. and learned member for
Southwark drew no distinction between sacred and profane,
whether charitable, municipal, corporate, or whatever the
character of the building or institution, he would bring all
into his net, But the proposal of the hon. member for
Greenwich was quite of another character, and would apply
to buildings used for State purposes; so that practically,
while the hon. member would grant exemption to the hos-
pital for dogs, which would come under the designation of
a charitable institution, he would bring Government build-
ings which had been exempt for a century or upwards within
the range of taxation. How did they stand with regard to
this matter? It was one which, if theroughly considered,
would be found to be fraught with extreme complication;
and the application of the principle of taxation would be
very serious in practice if applied to all buildings and in-
stitutions, embracing museums, the Houses of Parliament,
&c. In many parishes it might be that one-half of the area
and of the buildings were Government property; and
although that had been the condition for two or three hun-
dred years, the proposal of the hon. member would bring
them under taxation, which would be equal to endowing
the other taxpayers at the expense of the ratepayers of the
whole country. They were dealing gradually with the
question, as in the case of rating land taken for the purpose
of defence, and as in the case of the barracks at Chelsea,
where the Government undertook to bear the amount which
the land before contributed. This he contended was a better
mode of dealing with a difficult question than by an ab-
stract resolution such as that of the hon, member for
Greenwich.

Sir F. BARING recommended the hon. member for
Greenwich to leave the responsibility of the question upon
the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after
the admissions ho had made, instead of trying to grapple
with it himself.

Mr. DUTTON said that, to his own knowledge, some
parishes in the neighbourhood of Aldershott were pauperised
in consequence of the exemption from rates of the Govern-
ment buildings.

Mr. B, CARTER said he should support the motion if
it were pressed to a division, but ho would recommend its
withdrawal.

Mr. ANGERSTEIN, while supporting the motion, also
joined in recommending his hon, friend not to press it to a

division.

After a reply from:qr. Alderman SALOMONS, the house
divided—

Ayes
Noes
Majority against
TURNPIKE TRUSTS.

On the motion of Mr. CLTVE, the committee on turnpike
trusts, consisting of 21 members, was nominated, Mr.
Ferrand protesting that the agricultural interests in the
manufacturing districts were not properly represented
upon it.