£2,200, above 600 per cent; and in St. | Furness became bankrupt and the work was John's, Clerkenwell, the very focus of the la- suspended. It appeared that Mr. Furness bouring poor, nothing was obtained in 1856, went through the Bankruptcy Court, and but in the following year, £1,161 68. 3d. that he made statements there which raised was collected, and the amount in 1866 was a storm in the Metropolitan Board of Works. £2,595 188. 7d. The total amount re- In passing up and down the river, after ceived by the Board, including loans, had the bankruptcy of Mr. Furness, the hon. been £11,056,099 1s. 6d., or about Member said he had occasion to remark £1,000,000 a year. How was the money what a limited number of persons were spent? He admitted that the Board had engaged upon the Embankment, and how done good things: it had done great good, little they seemed to have to do; nevertheno doubt, in the Main Drainage; but one of less, in the accounts he found that credit its operations had been to make a very was given for extra time in 1865-6 and remarkable increase in the salaries of its 1866-7, to no less than eighty-seven persons officers. In 1856 the Chairman, Sir John in 1865-6, and ninety-two in 1866-7; some Thwaites, got £1,500 a year, and now he called assistant clerks, some special clerkshad £2,000, an increase of £500 per an- or clerks of the works, and some draughtsnum. In the Clerk's department, the name men; but he was told that some of the soof the first man that met his eye, Mr. called clerks of the works were merely maPollard, Clerk of the Board, represented an sons. Security was taken for the completion increase of £450 upon £350 a year, and of the works by Mr. Furness, and it became there were twelve more clerks who had important to know what had become of each had an increase. Mr. Bazalgette the these securities, and whether the amount for Engineer commenced with a salary of which they rendered themselves liable had £1,000, and now had £2,200. [Lord been paid. As far as the execution of the JOHN MANNERS: Hear, hear!] The noble work had proceeded, he had nothing to Lord cried " Hear, hear!" He must tell say against it; it was handsome, substanhim the ratepayers reciprocated the cry in tial, and in good taste, and it appeared that a very different sense. Three other gen- £378,634 out of the £520,000 had actutlemen, Messrs. Lovick, Grant, and Cooper, ally been expended. The complaint which had had their salaries raised from £350 he made with regard to the Report was, to £1,000 per annum. This had reference there was a want of openness and ingento the Engineer's department: and there uousness, and that all these facís were not were nineteen other persons whose salaries plainly stated; nothing was said of Mr. had been increased, varying from £75 to Furness's bankruptcy, nothing about his £286 4s. per annum. In the Architect's securities, and nothing about the suspension department (thirteen persons), every indi- of the works between Westminster and vidual but one had his salary increased-Waterloo Bridges. It would seem that the Mr. Vuliamy from £800 to £1,000 per annum In the Solicitor's office, eight persons are employed, and the salary of Mr. W. W. Smith, the Solicitor, has been raised from £1,000 to £1,250 per annum. In fact, the annual salary of seventy-two persons has been permanently increased at the cost of the ratepayers, besides the increase of the daily or weekly pay of many, many others. He did not object to a fair increase for length of service; but when he found that salaries were increased by more than 100 per cent, it made him remember that he had been 16 years in the public service before he got an increase-before he got a company. But then he had been only a poor subaltern, and not a clerk in the Metropolitan Board of Works. The portion of the Embankment from Waterloo to Whitehall was contracted for by Mr. Furness for the sum of £520,000, and was to have been completed last August twelvemonth; but Mr. Metropolitan District Railway, from want of funds, were not able to complete their authorized portion of the works upon the Embankment, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works would neither lend them money for the purpose, nor, in the absence of these railway works, would they complete them themselves. A report of the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works appeared upon this subject in The Times of Saturday, 25th January, 1868. He wished to know how long matters were thus to remain at a dead lock, to the damage of the public interests, and whether pressure upon the part of the House would not be brought to bear? Was the Metropolitan Board of Works to be allowed to refrain from carrying into effect all such arrangements as had been made, and would not the House compel the Board to see that the contract for the railway was proceeded with? The House would learn with sur prise that the Board had borrowed in ten | would encourage extravagance and withyears £6,827,000; and that at this moment draw the conduct of the Board from immethe outstanding sums against the Metropoli- diate observation. Impressed with this. tan Board amounted to £5,513,266 13s. 4d. belief, his right hon. Friend had pointed Where was that money to come from? out the necessity of finding some other Were they to have a permanent rate? source of taxation. This question had been and why should they call upon living people discussed on several occasions, and the to pay that deficiency? Why were we to House had repeatedly affirmed and acted pay for the comfort, convenience, and upon the view put forward respecting local health of people yet unborn? If money taxation in the Report to which allusion was to be borrowed for the purpose of had been made. Parliament had frequently these improvements, why should not the recognized the principle that whenever a rate be raised by annuities to extend over new charge was imposed, which came as it 100 years? The Metropolitan Board of were by surprise on the occupiers of proWorks was practically an irresponsible and perty, a portion of such charge ought to be despotic body; its patronage was enor-borne by the owners. When he, as a primous; it had the stomach of the cormovate Member, introduced his Bill, all those rant, and was endeavouring to acquire and to absorb every other power in the metropolis. It had clutched the Fire Brigade and Fire Escape Establishments, and was aiming at the Gas Companies; it was, in fact, an imperium in imperio, which ought not to exist to tax at pleasure the 3,000,000 of the population of London. MR. AYRTON said, that the Members of the Select Committee appointed two years ago to inquire into this subject must feel extremely gratified at the speech of his right hon. Friend, who had so cordially endorsed their opinions and recommendations. A Member of the present Government, having served upon that Committee, having devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject, and having concurred in the conclusions at which the Committee arrived, he had been led to hope that steps would be taken by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. Unfortunately, at the close of last Session the House found itself very nearly at the point from which it had started. His object on the present occasion was to draw some practical conclusions from the excellent remarks of his right hon. Friend. He quite concurred with his right hon. Friend that it would be contrary to any recognized principle of taxation to continue a tax like the Coal tax, and thus to give to the Metropolitan Board of Works the power of making a charge which was not to take effect immediately but at the expiration of many years. If one principle had been insisted upon more than another it was that nobody should be allowed to raise money, unless the incidence of the loan took place immediately, and the infraction of that principle by the Board of Works would be fraught with the greatest danger, as it stipendiary agencies of agitation, which were owners of property in the City should be subjected to an additional tax of 6d. in the pound to be applied by the Corporation. Accordingly that Bill was dropped, but no sooner had the Committee declared that it was inexpedient to levy 6d. in the pound than the Corporation, by every contrivance in their power, proclaimed the immense injustice of levying 3d. or 4d., which was the maximum of any rate to be levied uniformly through the whole metropolis. No private Member had any chance of successfully opposing the Corporation of the City of London, and it was therefore hopeless for him to proceed with his measure. But what was the present position of the question? The hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Colonel Hogg) who represented the wealthiest parish in London at the Board of Works, had this evening acquiesced in the expediency of the scheme which he had suggested, and his right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Goschen) had explained to the House the principles on which a tax should be based. Under these circumstances, it was a duty imperative on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into his own hands a question of such vital importance as the regulation of what might be termed the general finances of the metropolis. The metropolis was already under a great obligation to the right hon. Gentleman, because some years ago, at a critical period of metropolitan finance, he took a very wise view of the situation of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be better that he should himself deal with the finances, and show how the funds could be raised, after which the task of carrying out the works necessary for the public might be remitted to the Metropolitan Board. And the right hon. Gentleman had been amply rewarded for the course he took, as experience showed that he had saved the metropolis from the extravagant waste of no less than £5,000,000. Encouraged by what he did then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take this matter into his own consideration, in which event he would doubtless receive the support of the House. At present the finances of the metropolis were in the same state as the English finances were before Mr. Pitt established the Consolidated Fund. In the Committee he devoted much time to unravelling the accounts of the Board of Works extending over ten years, and he believed the Report gave a clear statement of the income and expenditure during that period. The result of the present system of finance was that you had a Board, with the credit of the whole metropolis at its back, going about raising loans like a second-class railway company at a rate of interest which was perfectly extravagant when you considered the security. The proper mode of raising money was not to have separate debts chargeable on particular funds, but to have one consolidated debt applicable to the whole metropolis. If the question were taken up by the Government in large and comprehensive manner, he had no hesitation in saying that money could be borrowed at no higher a rate of interest than 3 per cent. A debt borrowed upon the whole property of the metropolis would certainly have as good a security as the Consols of the country. If they borrowed money to be re-paid by instalment in thirty years, the annual payments would be reduced to a reasonable sum. There was, however, no analogy between the taxation of London and Paris. In Paris there was a complex system entirely different from our own. For instance, taxation on property in France did not mean fixed property only, but included moveables, and the produce of certain taxes was distributed throughout the country in aid of local resources. The octroi was not peculiar to Paris, but extended throughout the entire municipal system of France. Again, the duties of the municipality of Paris were much larger than those performed by the municipality here. There was only one administration, which not only included all the expenditure upon roads, lighting, police, and improvements, but embraced education and poor relief. He had always urged the consolidation of our administration as far as possible, and a reduction in the vast number of officials who were maintained by the present system. In every district you had two Boards, two sets of officials, double sets of collectors, who largely enhanced the cost of administration. He hoped, in conclusion, that some benefit would arise from the discussion, and that the Government would adopt the policy which the late Government were prepared to have adopted-take the subject of metropolitan finance into their own hands, and thus bring it before the House with all the authority which was necessary for dealing with it. MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE assured the right hon. Gentleman that the feeling that rates were bearing more than their due weight was not confined to London and its vicinity, but extended throughout every county. In the country they had their fears, not only that there would be an education rate, but that the keeping of turnpike-roads and other burdens would. be thrown upon the already overburdened ratepayers. If the rates of this metropolis were to be supplemented by a new tax, as was suggested, the people in the country naturally feared that the same course would be pursued in respect to them, and that an Imperial tax would supplement the rates with which they were at present oppressed. He should feel it his duty to offer every resistance to any plan which would have the effect of imposing additional burdens upon the occupiers of rateable property in the country. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, February 24, 1868. MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE - On Private NAVY-IRON BALLAST IN THE THE DUKE OF SOMERSET said, their Lordships would probably remember that about a year ago much was said about a quantity of iron ballast that was used for paving the dockyards, and of the great waste this was to the public service. He understood that this iron ballast had since been offered for sale; and with a view to ascertain the value of the iron, it was his intention to move on Thursday next for a Return of the number of tous of iron sold, and of the amount of money received for them and paid into the Treasury. COURT OF APPEAL, CHANCERY (DE- PRESENTED. FIRST READING. MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, the discussion had shown that the limits of taxation in this metropolis had been reached. From personal experience, he knew that the amount of suffering and distress arising from the increased taxation placed upon the already overburdened taxpayers had become intolerable. In his opinion taxation ought to be imposed according to the capabilities of the poorest parishes. He knew that many and many a ratepayer could only pay the imposts upon him by hard work and the greatest self-denial, and it was very unfair to increase the difficulties of that class of persons. As it was manifest that those who were to come after us would derive a much greater benefit than we could hope to do from any imLORD ST. LEONARDS said, the Act provements which might be effected, it which the Legislature passed last year, to was only right that they should defray enable the Lords Justices to sit separately some portion of the expense, and that the to hear appeals against decisions of the present occupiers should not have to bear Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancelthe entire heat and burden of the day. lors in certain cases, had led to some diffiThe whole question of taxation ought to culty. By the Act constituting the Court dealt with in a comprehensive manner, so of Appeal, the Court was formed of the as to do justice to the metropolis and to Lord Chancellor and the two Judges of the country at large. He had had so Appeal. The Court has the jurisdiction of many representations made to him on the the Lord Chancellor, and an appeal lies to subject that he felt bound to say that any the House of Lords. The Lord Chancelincrease of taxation would press most se-lor and the two Judges may, of course, sit verely on the taxpayers of the metropolis. Even the wealthiest parishes contained many poor, and they ought to be considered as well as the rich. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at Eight o'clock, together, or the Lord Chancellor may sit with one Judge, or the two Judges may sit without the Chancellor. The jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor is reserved, so that he may hear appeals alone. The pressure of business was such that last year a Bill was passed in effect authorizing either of the two Judges to exercise the jurisdiction under the original Act, provided that no decree made on the hearing of a cause, or on further directions, shall be re-heard before the said Judges when sitting alone. The object of the proviso was to prevent a single Judge of Appeal from hearing an appeal from another single Judge of a Court below where the cause had been regularly heard. It did not occur to the framers of this Bill that between the two Acts before referred to another Act had been passed, which enabled suitors, instead of resorting to the old practice of what is termed bringing a cause to a regular hearing, to move for a decree or decretal order, and thus save both time and money; and, where the motion is granted, the cause is as regularly heard as if the old practice had been resorted to. An appeal was soon brought to a hearing from a decree upon motion, and it was the opinion of the Judges that it could be heard by a single Judge of Appeal sitting alone. This was manifestly contrary to the principle of the new Act, and to give effect to the intention of the Legislature he had prepared a short Bill extending the proviso to decrees and decretal orders upon motion in like manner, as if they had been made on the hearing of a cause or on further directions. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the practice arose from the words of the Act. It was quite true that the Lords Justices and himself, when a question arose on the matter, came to the conclusion that the Lords Justices might hear separately appeals against decisions made on motions for decree; but he had some doubt on the construction of the Act. It was very desirable to have those doubts removed, which would be done by the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, which, besides, had the great merit of being extremely short. A Bill to amend an Act to make further Pro vision for the Despatch of Business in the Court of Appeal in Chancery-Was presented by The Lord ST. LEONARDS; read 1". (No. 20.) TENURE (IRELAND) BILL-[H.L.] PRESENTED. FIRST READING. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, rose to call the attention of the House to the question of land tenure in Ireland. He commenced by referring to the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, to which his Bill of last year upon this subject was referred. In the month of July, that Committee unanimously determined to issue an imperfect Report, and to recommend its own re-appointment this Session, in order that the inquiry might be resumed. The language of the Report was "The subject-matter of the Bill is, however, of so much complexity and difficulty that they are of opinion that it is not possible for them, in the short period of the Session now remaining, to make such progress in it as to warrant them in recommending it at present for your Lordships' adoption. The Committee have therefore determined to report the evidence, together with the Bill in its necessarily incomplete state, and to recommend that the Committee be re-appointed at as early a period of next Session as practicable for the purpose of further considering it." He did not recollect that any objection was made by any Member of the Committee to that recommendation, which was moved by the noble Earl who represented the Government. He might say, however, that some Members of the Committee were of opinion that it would be well to draw particular attention to some of the state ments made in the evidence, and to the conclusions to be deduced from them. A draft Report was prepared, and he should have been glad if it could have been laid before the House. One clause of the draft Report was as follows "The Committee again direct your Lordships' best attention to the entire evidence as now reported, and upon which they will not further enlarge. A correct knowledge of the present condition of the country is necessary in order to guide safely to future legislation. The assertions so often reiterated, to the effect that the tenant makes all the permanent improvements in Ireland, that the rents are extravagantly high, that a competition for land is encouraged by offering it to the highest bidder at the expiration of a tenancy, that evictions and changes of tenure are of frequent occurrence, that no general improvement is taking place, and that a bad feeling commonly exists between landlords and tenants, will probably receive correction from its perusal." It was to be regretted that this clause was not published along with the evidence. What, he asked, was the condition of Ireland now? There never was a time when it was less necessary to take extraordinary and novel action, with respect to the subject of land in Ireland, than existed at the present moment. The condition of neither landlords nor tenants presented any extraordinary difficulty, and it was only the condemnation of the existing law by Judges of the highest authority, and differences of opinion among them that created litigation and directed attention to its amendment. The evidence taken by the Select Committee of their Lordships which sat last year plainly showed the gross injustice, exaggeration, and absurdity of the statements made by agitators as to exorbitant rents exacted by landlords, and frequency of evictions in Ireland. It was not to |