which added to the burdens of ordinary and this land they retained in their London ratepayers. In London there possession when they gave the park over were 60,000 tramps, and about 10,000 to the County Council. Another argucriminals, which could not possibly be ment of provincial Members was that due to the ordinary criminality or the London police stations and police destitution of London itself. Therefore, force were maintained out of the Imthe advantages of the Imperial city were perial revenue. The London people counterbalanced by its disadvantages. were quite prepared to maintain the DR. MACGREGOR I would point stations and the police when they got out to the hon. Gentleman that the control of the force. The London County expenses of criminals come on the Council originally paid only £7,000 in Imperial Revenue. rates for their buildings. But the local MR. JOHN BURNS said, the hon. authorities rose up in arms against the Gentleman forgot that there were many system of assessment, and in six years local charges, such as the cost of casual the amount had jumped from £7,000 to wards and other poor law expenses, £63,000. He did not see why Governwhich were attributable to the state of ment buildings should not pay rates as things he had mentioned. The right well as County Council buildings, and hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the he was sure that if, next Session, the Treasury had asked the London Members hon. Member for Islington brought in a on what basis a fort or arsenal could Bill on the lines of his Motion, it would be assessed. Did the right hon. Gentle- receive the support of the bulk of the man think that the Assessment Com- Members of that House. mittees of the local authorities would not MR. JAMES ROWLANDS (Finsdiscriminate between the valuation of a bury, E.) said, some provincial Members fort and a public house? Of course they seemed to think that the question of the would. Indeed, if a uniform and equit- assessment of Government buildings able system of rating of Government was purely a London question. They buildings were established, he was afraid failed to take into consideration the imthe Assessment Committees would err on portant fact that while London paid the side of generosity in assessing Govern- one-fifth of the rating of the United ment buildings, because they would be Kingdom, it had only one-third of the influenced by the desire to retain those Government property. Another feature establishments in their districts. It was of the question entirely lost sight of in also said by provincial Members that the Debate was, the position of parishes there were certain parks in London in London that were not so favourably maintained at the expense of the coun- situated as Westminster or the Strand, try. But if the Government gave them there were large Government establisha just and uniform assessment of all ments that, probably, recouped the Government property in London, the parishes for anything they lost in the people of London would not be indis- way of rates. In Finsbury, for instance, posed to take over and maintain all the there was a militia barracks, occupied, Government parks and open spaces. most of the year, by a staff, from which What the Government had done was to the parish derived no benefit of any hand over to the London County Council kind, in lieu of the rates. There were, certain parks with all their liabilities for also, in the parish three drill halls of maintenance, but without many of the volunteers that did not belong to the recoupment revenues which the Govern- parish, and not one penny of rates was ment got when they originally took over paid by those buildings. In fact, Finsthose parks. For instance, the Govern- bury lost, rather than gained, by its ment handed over Battersea Park, on Government establishments. He thought which they used to spend £10,000 a year, the time had come for doing away with to the County Council. The same sum those exemptions. He desired to give was now spent by the County Council on the Secretary to the Treasury all the the park. But there was a piece of land credit for the work he was doing towards round the park which the Government settling the question, and he thought got with the park, and from which they the hands of the right hon. Gentleman derived £10,000 a year in ground rents would be materially strengthened if the -the amount they spent on the park-Resolution were placed on record as the

expression of the views of the House on regarded London. Their complaint the question.

MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER (St Andrews Burghs) said, there were cases of authorities under the control of the Board of Trade being held justified in refusing to contribute to local rates because of certain statutory exemptions. The President of the Board of Trade would confirm him when he said that it was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown that the Board of Trade had no alternative in the matter, and was not permitted under the statute to make any such exemptions as had been demanded by certain parishes in Scotland, and one especially in which he was interested. Therefore, as legislation would certainly be necessary in some such cases as were contemplated by the Motion of his hon. Friend, he should prefer it in that form. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to indicate that he would accept the Resolution in the amended form, it would go very far to mitigate his feelings in the matter, and to lead to that unanimity which they should all be glad to find.

*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) said, he was willing to leave out of the Motion the word "legislation," his object being to reaffirm the principle on the line of the Treasury Minute, leaving it to the Government to determine how it should be carried out.

*SIR JOHN HIBBERT intimated that, even with the alteration suggested, he could not accept the Resolution, but should prefer to rely upon the principle expressed in the Memorandum of 1874.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:--Ayes, 65; Noes 64. (Division List No. 48.)

Main Question again proposed.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University) said, he desired to call the attention of the House to the inadequate amount received hy London under the present system from the Imperial Exchequer grants in aid of local expenditure, and to press for an inquiry into the system under which the grants were distributed, especially as Mr. James Rowlands.

fell under three main heads-namely, rates on Government property, the share of Exchequer contributions, and the contribution to police. As regarded the first point the House was aware that Government property was not rated. Government, however, had accepted the principal that a sum should be paid, fairly representing the rate. The London Members believed, however, and thought they should be able to satisfy a Committee that under this head London received £40,000 a year less than the sum to which she was justly entitled. The Exchequer contributions, to which he now passed, were apportioned according to the amount paid by Government in the year 1887-8 in respect of certain grants discontinued in that year by the Local Government Act, and this system was open to serious objections. In the first place the year 1887-8 was very unfortunate for London, inasmuch as they received less than 22 per cent., whereas for several previous years they had received over 23 per cent. In any case, however, he submitted that was a very unsatisfactory plan to take the cost in one year of certain specified charges as permanent rates for the ap portionment of rates in all future years and for all requirements. But, in the second place, these grants themselves were not based on any equitable system of division, as between county and county; in some of them, as for instance, those for roads, and for medical officers, London had scarcely any allotment. As regards the grant for main roads, out of a total of £500,000, London received £3,500 only; the fact that in the City they supported their own police at a cost of £50,000 a year, was left out of account altogether, and the consequence was that London received over £150,000 less than its fair amount.

[Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present :

House adjourned at a Quarter before
Eight o'clock till Monday next.

[INDEX.

The Subjects of Debate, as far as possible, are classified under General Headings: e.g.,

ABRAHAM, MR. W., Cork Co., N.E. ACLAND, Right Hon. A. H. D.—cont.

Glamorganshire Intermediate
Scheme April 25, 1627

Lowestoft

Education

Vol. 32.

Vol. 32.