After some remarks from Lord POLWARTH and the Earl of DALHOusie,

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to: Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill be printed, as amended [No. 153].

House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Thursday, July 3, 1862. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-2° Parochial Buildings (Scotland); New Zealand. 30 African Slave Trade Treaty; Pier and IIarbour Orders Confirmation; Sheep (Ireland).

GREAT NORTHERN AND WESTERN (OF

IRELAND) RAILWAY BILL.

RESOLUTION.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN said, he rose to move that the Resolution, which upon the 17th day of June last was reported from the Select Committee on Standing Orders, in relation to the Great Northern and Western (of Ireland) Railway Bill, be re-committed; and that the Petition of the Great Northern and Western (of Ireland) Railway Company, praying for dispensation with the Standing Orders, deposited in the Private Bill Office this day, be referred to the said Committee; and that it be an Instruction to the said Committee, that they have power to inquire into the allegations contained in such Petition, and to report to the House whether the special circumstances therein stated are such as to render it just and expedient that the Standing Order should be dispensed with.

MR. ENNIS said, that as chairman of a railway company in Ireland, whose interest would be affected by the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he could not but complain of the suddenness with which that Motion had been made. It was only on the previous night that notice was given in the Private Bill Office that the application would be made. They knew nothing of the allegations contained in the Petition, and he trusted, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would defer his Motion for a few days.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN said, he

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

[BILL NO. 144.] COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. KNIGHT said, he objected to the Bill as one that was wholly unnecessary and excessively in favour of the towns against the country. It was an attempt by the Central Board in London to take into their own hands the management of all the local rates in England. The only difficulty which had hitherto stood in their way was the difference of rating in the various parishes. He therefore thought that the Bill ought not to pass without protest, and he should accordingly move, that the House should go into Committee on that day three months.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this Ilouse will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

MR. HENLEY said, that the Bill professed to have two objects. First, to get a parish rated fairly as amongst the parishioners; next, to have parishes rated equitably as between themselves. With respect to the first point, he thought it would be far better to leave that question to be settled by the inhabitants of a parish, as at present. He, for one, should not like to see the power which parishioners possessed of rating themselves taken out of their hands. The second branch of the Bill was the more legitimate of the two; but, oddly enough, it did not take one single step in the direction it proposed. The machinery it provided, with a view to the equitable rating of different parishes within the same union, was as bad and cumbrous as well could be, and therefore would be found ineffectual to carry out the object which they all desired to see effected. The Bill proposed that the parish overseer should make a valuation

of all the hereditaments within the union, and that was to be done within three months. The consequence would be, that there would be several valuers; and as it was well known that there were high and low valuers, the valuations might differ one from another to the extent of 15 per cent. The complete valuation was then to be sent to a committee consisting of not less than six and not more than twelve Poor Law guardians, who, when they had considered it, were to send it to the parishioners. They had twenty-eight days to bring objections before the several boards of guardians, and they had twenty-eight further days to reconsider. At the end of that time it was to be sent back to the parishioners, and ultimately to the boards of guardians again. That process might be repeated so often - each alteration eliciting a fresh objection that it was impossible to say at what period the valuation would be finally settled. Such was the machinery contemplated by the Bill, and it was to be put in motion at the end of each year, so as to include new houses erected, and to strike out old houses pulled down. He believed that the Bill would drive the whole community of England to a professional survey and valuation of every parish at an expense that would be enormous. A professional valuation of his own county, which was a small one, would cost between £20,000 and £30,000. All that was now required was that the gross valuation of each parish should be ascertained on a uniform system. Where parishes were rated unfairly between each other, the Bill made no provision for settling that difference in an inexpensive manner. It was better that the Bill should be further considered before it was passed, and that some machinery should be introduced to enable an unfair rating of parishes among each other to be adjusted in some other way than by an appeal to quarter sessions: that must be a source of great expense. He doubted whether the Bill would work at all; and if the whole kingdom was to be driven into an official valuation, they ought to know what it would cost. He supported the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Worcestershire.

MR. BARROW said, that speaking from his own experience as a chairman of a large board of guardians, he differed from the view of the measure taken by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He believed that a revision of the rating

was absolutely necessary, and he thought that the boards of guardians would be the least inexperienced body to which that duty could be intrusted. He should object to an appeal being allowed to the quarter sessions against the valuation, except as a last resource. He thought that the assessment committees, which the Bill would enable the guardians to appoint, would, from their local knowledge and experience, be as competent and certainly a less expensive tribunal for deciding a question of that nature. The good sense of the ratepayers and the guardians would enable them to avoid any great expense. The boards of guardians consisted of the principal ratepayers, and it would be their own interest to make a fair valuation. An overseer of a parish could not call in the aid of a professional valuer without the previous consent of the board of guardians.

MR. POULETT SCROPE said, that if he thought the Bill deserving of the character which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had given to it, he would certainly not support it. He believed, however, that the main object of the Bill, namely, equalizing the rates of the various parishes in a union, would be effected by the machinery it provided. The principal objection of the right hon. Member was that no effectual appeal was provided for parishioners who felt themselves aggrieved. The 16th clause, however, provided an appeal to a committee of guardians representing the various parishes, who would, no doubt, be anxious to have a fair adjustment and distribution of the rating carried out. It would be a great advantage if a fair and correct valuation of parishes were established, and he believed the Assessment Committee would be able to effect it. Their valuation would be a valuable statistical document. No exception had been taken to the principle of the measure, and its details could be fully considered in Committee.

MR. THOMPSON said, he was of opinion that the greatest benefit would result from the operation of the machinery which the Bill proposed as it would facilitate the more equitable adjustment of rating. The present law of rating bore very unjustly on railway companies. As soon as it was decided in the Select Committee to omit those clauses which altered the law of rating, the Bill became simply one to improve the machinery by which the

present law was to be carried into effect, and it was decided, on the part of the railway companies not to oppose its further progress. As to the defects pointed out by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he thought the Assessment Committee selected from the board of guardians would deal with them more satisfactorily than the overseers of country parishes did at present. The Bill gave a power of appealing against a valuation, which could not be done now. The only power of appeal at present was against the rate after it was made. The valuation was to. be made accessible to any ratepayer, who would be able to make his appeal, if aggrieved, at an earlier stage than he could do under the existing law, and when it was more likely to be successful. He thought the Bill ought to be allowed to go into Committee.

COLONEL BARTTELOT said, he thought many parts of the Bill were good; but it did not contain any clear, distinct principle of rating that might be generally applicable. There was the assessment for the property and income tax, for the county rate, and for the parochial rates. In passing a new law, they should lay down some distinct principle to guide them.

MR. HUMBERSTON said, he believed the Bill was a great improvement on the present system, though there were some defects in its details. The assessment committee of guardians, he thought, would be quite competent to deal with the questions that would arise.

MR. PULLER observed, that the necessity for a Bill which would do justice as between parish and parish was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who expressed himself in favour of a gross valuation merely. He should contend, however, that a gross valuation was merely an aggregate of the valuations of the various tenements within the parish. The only way in which such a valuation as would enable the rating to be equitably distributed over the union could be obtained, was to have regard to cach tenement. He believed that to the guardians, in whom the ratepayers had confidence, should be intrusted the duties which the Bill proposed to have discharged by the parish overseer. With respect to the question of appeal, he would have more confidence in the decision of a committee of guardians in such matters than in that

of a court of quarter sessions. He knew of several cases in which imperfect valuations had been acted upon, and other cases in which they had been altered to suit the interests of influential parties in the parishes, and they knew this was submitted to because the ratepayers did not wish to incur the expense and trouble of an appeal to the quarter sessions.

MR. BENTINCK said, he could not but admit the necessity for some legislation on the subject; but he did not think the Bill treated it in the right way. Correct the Bill as they might, it would still be a source of expense to the rural districts, and he had another objection to the measure-that, like all modern legislation, it had generally a centralizing character. On these grounds, he should oppose going into Committee.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK said, he was at a loss to discover how the Bill would insure a uniform and accurate valuation of parishes. If the valuation were to be intrusted to several persons, he doubted whether it would be either uniform or correct. He considered the machinery of the Bill as likely to lead to jobbery and great expense. He should oppose the progress of the Bill.

COLONEL GILPIN said, he thought the Bill passed last year rendered the present measure absolutely necessary. He should vote against the Amendment.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS said, he had been unwilling to interfere with a discussion that was likely to elicit the general opinion of the House as to the measure; but, knowing the great value of time at that period of the year, he would make an appeal to the House to consent to go into Committee on the Bill. There had recently been no discussion on the principle of the measure. Hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had gone into points of detail, anticipating what would have been their arguments in Committee. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment against the Speaker leaving the chair had hardly said a word on the merits of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had only pointed out difficulties that would exist whether the Bill was passed or not. His objections were almost entirely to the expense of the valuation. The same objection existed under the present system. New valuations must be made; there had been no less than 2,000 made within the last few years. The right hon. Gentleman must himself admit that the present