The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-06 00:00:00

Mr. DUNCAN said the bill of last session had turned
out to be wholly inoperative in Scotland, owing to the
constitution of the local bodies there. Why not strike
out the fourth clause, if that was all that was objection-
able in the bill ?

Mr. W. BROWN declared that the course Govern-
ment were taking with regard to this bill would be a
great disappointment to the country.
Mr. S. HERBERT said, if the suggestion of the hon.
member for Dundee were adopted, it would not get over
the difficulty, because then the ground-work of the bill
would be wholly destroyed.
Lord D. STUART said no petitions had been pre-
sented against the bill, but many were on the table in
its favour. It was quite clear, therefore, that the rate-
payers did not object to it.
Mr. EWART denied that the fourth clause was part
of the principle of the bill, but it was only part of the
detail, which could be struck out if necessary in com-
mittee.

The house then divided on the amendment that the
bill be read a second time this day six months, when
there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

Majority 3
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
UNIFORM ASSESSMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

Mr.
PETO explained the object of the bill to be to
establish an uniform system of assessment, which should
be applicable to Queen's taxes as well as local rates,
leaving the committee on the bill to decide the basis
upon which all assessments should be made imperative.
He proposed, if the bill was read a second time, to refer
it to a select committee.
Mr. HENLEY did not think there was any necessity
for this bill, as the tendency of the existinc, mode of
valuation in respect of all taxes was to render assess-
ments as uniform as possible.
Lord PALMERSTON' had no doubt that what this
bill proposed was ;;nod in theory, but it would be next
to impossible to establish the machinery for obtaining
one uniform system of taxation.
Mr. HUME could not understand why a thing that
was possible in the United States should be impossible
in this country. Now, there was one uniform system of
assessment in the United States, and now that there
was a prospect of our having a permanent property tax,
he could see no reason why a similar system should not
be carried out here. There ought to be one principle
of assessment used, that should be based on the poer
rate.

Mr. V. SCULLY observed that there was a general
valuation in Ireland, and the bill might possibly be ap-
plicable to that part of the country, but there was quite
a different state of things in England, where no uniform
Government valuation had become established. He
moved that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.
Mr. G. BUTT seconded the amendment, as the bill
assumed for its basis that which was not correct, namely,
that the poor-rate was levied upon a uniform scale or
rate.

Mr. PETO, with the permission of the house, with-
drew the bill.
The motion for the second reading was accordingly
withdrawn.

COUNTY COURT EXTENSION ACT AMEND.
MENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

kr. CRAUFURD explained that its object was to
give a power of appeal in cases over 501., which had
been tried in a` County Court by consent of
both parties.
The power of appeal did exist in reference to
cases under
60/., but all cases above that amount were exceptional
casesent, and could only be taken to a County Court by
cons.
Mr. G. BUTT approved of the bill.
Mr. PHINN asked when the report of the County
Court Commission might be expected, as the costs
charged in County Courts were so high in some courts
as virtually to bring the system to a close.
Mr. HUME said the house would be surprised to
learn the costs paid last year in the County Courts
amounted to no less than 26 per cent. on the amount re-
covered.
Lord PALMERSTON said the report had not yet
been received, as the commissioners were still sitting.
Mr. MALINS viewed with some apprehension the
proposed extension of the County Court system, as the
County Court judges had already quite enough to do.
Mr. FITZROY' concurred with the hen. and learned
gentleman that too many duties were being imposed on
these judges, whose courts were originally established
simply for the recovery of simple contract debts.
The bill was then read a second time.
PROPERTY DISPOSAL BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. PHINN said the object of this bill was to regu-
late the disposal of property by persons who had
taken religious vows. Now he did not object to place
nuns with regard to the disposal of their property upon
the same footing as married women, who ware reqrired
to make a discovery before a judge ; but this bill went
xnuc4furthey than that. It assumed that every disposi-
Sticn of property by a nun was fraudulently made ; and
'" that upon tht• convent or party in whose favour the
; disposition war male, the onus of proving the deed of
..
ti - transfer was not signed under any spiritual direction, or,
,4;1 in fact, on any condition. The object of this bill could
v be accomplished without that obnoxious provision ; but
• if they wissed the bill as it now stood, it would have the
' effect of forbidding gifts to conve.nts, awl therefore be
(
...