The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-05 00:00:00

the bill was simply permissive, and before it could be
put in force it must receive the sanction of the local
authorities. At the same time be thought education ought
to precede the establishment of these libraries, as the
vast mass of the people, as the coroners' returns fully
proved, were unable to read.
Mr. SPOONER thought a larger limitation ought to
be placed on the power of rating, and since no Minister
was present to give his opinion, he should move that the
debate be adfoureed.
Mr. BROTEIERTON regretted to see this opposi-
tion to a bill which was very popular out of doors, and j
which was so much calculated to improve the social
condition of the people. It was much better to prevent
crime than punish it, and the effect of the establishment
of these libraries would decrease crime, and consequently
the local rates.
Mr. MILES opposed the rating clause.
Mr. F I rz ROY, on the part of the Government, an-
nounced his intention to resist the proposed alteration
of the existing law which gave the local authorities power
to raise the rate to a penny in the pound without the
consent of two-thirds of the ratepayers. He must, there-
fore, oppose the bill.
Mr. M. MILNES supported the bill in its entirety,
and hoped it would he pressed to a division. Surely,
as improvement commissioners, town councils, and se-
lect vestries were elected by the ratepayers, what ob-
jection could there be to giving them power to increase
and levy the rate?
Mr. G. BUTT opposed the bill, and wanted to sub-
stitute another amendment for the one proposed by Mr.
Spooner—viz., that the bill be read a second time this
day six months.
Mr. SPOONER had no objection to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr. HUME trusted he would not, for if they adopted
the amendment suggested by Mr. Butt it would be
holding out to the country that the house disapproved
of the principle of this bill, when they only objected in
point of fact to the rating clause.
The house then divided on the amendment, when
there appeared,
For tha adjournment .. 4
134
Against it
Majirity —l3O
Mr. FITZROY then moved that the bill be read a
second time this,day six ii,onths.
Mr. HUME and Mr M. MILNES hoped if the bill was
thrown out that another and a larger measure would
be brought in by the Government.
Captain SCOBELL supported the bill, as he had no
confidence in the professions of the Government with
regard to education.
Lord STANLEY approved of the principle of the bill,
hut he could not support the bill while it contained the
fourth clause, transferring the power of raising the rate
from the ratepayers to the town-council.
Sir C. WOOD insisted that the existing act, which
had only been in operation four months, had not yet had
a fair trial, but the Government opposed this bill on the
ground just stated by the noble lord.
Mr. BRIGHT thought the town council was a far
more fitting body to decide upon the rate than the rate-
payers, arid to say they were not was tantamount to de-
claring that the house had no right to decide upon par-
ticular measures until they had been first discussed and
decided on by the whole of the constituencies through-
out the country.
Mr. CRAUFURD said Scotland was favourable to
the adoption of the Libraries Act, and it was to be re-
gretted that the Government should stand in its way.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE reminded the house that a short
bill was passed last session, extending the Act to both
Ireland and Scotland.
Mr. DUNCAN said the bill of last session bad 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. E WART 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
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
UNIFORNI ASSESSMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the sec)nd reading of this

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 th 3 tendency of the existing mode of
valuation in respect of all taxes was to render assess-

inents as uniform as possible.
Lord PALMERSTON. had no doubt that what this
bill proposed was good in theory, but it would be next
to impossible to establish the machinery for obtaining
one uniform system of taxation.
Mr. HU\IE 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

I,e carried out here. There ought to be one principle
of assessment used, that should be based un the poor

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
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,
Mr. CRNUFURD 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
501., but all cases above that amount were exceptional
cases, and could only be taken to a County Cuurt by
consent.
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 ye
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 hon. and learned
gentlenein teat 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.
OA 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 were required
to make a discovery before a judge ; but this bill went
much further than that. It assumed that. every disposi-
tion of property by a nun was fraudulently made ; and
that upon the convent or party in whose favour the
disposition was made, the onus of proving the dead of
transfer was not signed under any spiritual direction, or,
in fact, any mndition at all. The object of this bill could
be accomplished without that obnoxious provision ; but
if they passed the bill as it now stood, it would have the
effect of forbidding gifts to convents, and therefore he
must oppose it, unless a great change was made in its
machinery and details.
Mr. FAGAN objected to proceeding with the bill to-
day, as it was a violation of an understanang that was
come to on the first reeding, that the second reading
should not be taken until after the committee on cons
vents had been appointed, and had made their report.
The hon. gentleman then proceeded to rebut the state-
ments which had been made with regard to the case of
the Black Rock Convent, wherein it was alleged that
two ladies named M'Carty had been coerced into trans.
ferring their property to the Convent to the great injury
tt
hh
eepurposes Lardon e PALMERSTONcontained
ntaoifn the
lea bill,s. t
itfo e,
of their own family, and concluded by declaring himself
to be decidedly opposed to the bill.
neither approved of the pre-
amble nor the enacting portion of the bill, because while
nisndtletaed, that were
rellboatdnaencyessaryfor
founda-
tion in trutb, the enacting clause did not go far enough
to accomplish the object of the bill. The enacting
portion of the bill proceeded upon the assumption
that nuns were morally coerced into leaving their
properties to convents. But how was that to be
proved ? Such deeds were executed by these ladies under
the impression that their doing so was essential to their
spiritual welfare, and the bill, if passed, would remain a
nullity, because:it would be impossible to prove coercion,
while it was clear that these ladies themselves always
thought and felt that they were acting with perfect free
will.
Mr. WHITESIDE reminded the house that on a for-
mer occasion the objection of the noble lord was that it
did not go far enough. The noble lord remarked that
,f ladies were coerced in convents, such institutions
should ue put down, which this bill did not go the length
of doing ; but now the noble lord had changed his tone,
and he wood to tijo PrOPII. 3.#111.4_1. 4e4.4
_ _ ,