The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-17 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS-LAST EVENING.

THE PUBLIC LOAN ACTS.
Earl POWIS called the attention of the First Lord of
the Treasury to the impediment to the beneficial working
of the Public Loan Acts, caused by the Treasury minute
of 1859, declining any further reduction of interest below
5 per cent. He did not complain of the action of the Trea-
sury so far as related to loans granted to companies under-
taking works for private profit ; but he must say that he
did think that it was unjust and inexpedient to exact so
high a rate as 5 per cent. for money lent for public purposes,
on the security of poor rates, borough rates, and county
rates. The State ought not to make a profit out of the
assistance which it gave by loan to such undertakings. By
so doing they increased the expense, and therefore dis-
couraged the execution of many public works. There could
be no need for the Government to charge 5 per cent. for
loans on the security of rates, because the security was
perfectly safe, while they themselves obtained the money
at something like 3 per cent.
Earl RUSSELL said that before 1859 the rate of interest
on loans granted by the Public Loan Commissioners varied
with the rate of interest in the market. That practice
was found very inconvenient, and therefore, in 1859, the
Treasury decided that the uniform rate of interest should
be 5 per cent. That was not a very high rate, and he
believed it was far more conducive to the public interest
that there should be a fixed than a fluctuating rate. Ex-
ceptions had, however, been made from time to time in
favour of useful undertakings of a beneficial character, for
which money had been lent at a lower rate than 5 per cent.
Lord OVERSTONE said that if the Government inter-
fered to divert capital to particular classes of undertakings,
they ought not to supply that capital at a lower rate than
that which persons were compelled to pay who borrowed
money in the open market to carry on other useful works.
Looking to the rate of interest which had prevailed for the
last five years, he must say that he was surprised to hear
5 per cent. complained of as an unduly high rate of inte-
rest. The demand for capital to meet the various under-
takings which had been entered into on all sides was very
great at the present time, as was evident from the current
rate of interest, and he thought it would bo most unjust if
the Government, by offering money at a very low rate of
interest, were to divert capital into a certain class of under-
takings, and were thus to add to the embarras§ments under
which men of business who had to obtain their capital in
the open market were now suffering.
The subject then dropped.
THE CATTLE PLAGUE.
Lord DUNSANY wished to ask her Majesty's Ministers
whether they had received information that any cattle bad
been smuggled into Ireland from Scotland, and if so, what
precautions had been taken to prevent it. He also desired
to know if it was true that an Order in Council had lately
been issued permitting the importation of sheep or lamb
skins under certain conditions into Ireland.
Earl GRANVILLE said that 126 sheep had been ille-
gally imported from Scotland into Ireland in the month of
October. The importers were prosecuted and punished,
and he had not heard of any subsequent case in which the
law had been evaded. An Order in Council had been
issued permitting the importation of sheep and lamb skins
on condition that they were packed in a particular way,
and were prepared with lime in such a manner as to pre-
clude all risk of their conveying infection.
The house adjourned at twenty minutes to seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
CATTLE DISEASES BILL.
The house then went into committee on this'bill.
Clauses from 22 to 30 inclusive were struck out of the
bill.

Mr. AYRTON took objection to the proposal to raise
one-third of the compensation by a cattle rate, and showed
the hardship which it would inflict on the owners of
diseased cattle. He preferred that the whole sum should
be raised from the local rates.
Mr. J. S. MILL said the hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets having done him the honour of making reference
to some observations of his, appeared not altogether to
have seized upon his argument. Perhaps he might be
allowed in a few words to recapitulate the substance of
that argument. The hon. member had laid down the prin-
ciple that taxation ought to be so regulated as not to be
partial, and that a particular class of the community ought
not to be taxed in order to indemnify them from the con-
sequences of a calamity because they had already suffered
to so great a degree. Now, his argument was grounded
on this, that the class, though the sufferers immediately,
were not the sufferers ultimately by this calamity, in any
other way than the rest of the community, inasmuch as
they are consumers of food. (No, no, from the Opposition.)
Such a proceeding would relieve them from the conse-
quences of this misfortune, except that portion which
they, as consumers, would bear in common with the rest
of the community. In consequence of this, it followed
that if they took from the whole community, in order to
give special indemnity to a particular class for what they
suffered instead of taxing them partially, they would be
taxing the rest of the community in order to relieve them.
This was his argument, and ho had seen nothing to alter
it. That part of the bill which made provision for the com-
pensation to which the hon. gentleman the member for the
Tower Hamlets referred was the only part of the whole
which he conceived to be founded on a correct principle.
(Laughter.) It was compensation, not for a burden, but
for the inequality of a burden. The class, as a class, would
be compensated in the ordinary order of things ; but this
was the compensation which was due from the more for-
tunate of themselves to the less fortunate, and this the tax
on cattle would effect. Thus ho contended that in principle
the tax, whatever it might be, ought not to be a general
rate, but a rate on land only. (No, no, from the Opposi-
tion.) Although he thought the clause was capable of
amendment, ho would be disposed to support a very diffe-
rent alteration to that proposed.
Mr. B. COCHRANE and Sir J. PAKINGTON argued in
favour of drawing a portion of the rate from the general
funds of the county.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE, despairing of obtaining the assent
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to any contribution
frcm the Consolidated Fund, recommended that the whole
charge should be borne by the county rate.
Mr. J. B. SMITH recommended the imposition of a
general cattle rate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER characterised
the proposal to lay the Consolidated Fund under contribu
tion as novel, inexpedient, and entirely unasked for by the
agriculturists, and reminded the house of the forcible
argument used by Mr. Lowe, that to secure the great ad-