pay £1 in £45, or such other figure as, paid far more than land, which seldom | man who paid £1 in £66 was a rich changed hands. This was exactly the man; rich men made the law, and in opposite of the conclusion drawn by the framing the law adjusted it so as to suit hon. Member for East Sussex. The hon. themselves. He appealed to the ChanMember had referred to the land tax as cellor of the Exchequer, not asking a heavy burthen on land, and as having him to raise the one rate or to reduce originally produced £2,000,000, al- the other, but to strike a fair medium, though now only £1,000,000, owing to and make each class pay the same perredemption. It was well known that centage; so that the same amount would the land tax when first imposed in this way be raised, and there would nearly two centuries ago-was in lieu be no complaints of the Revenue being of certain feudal and other burthens | injuriously affected. With respect to which land had then to bear. All the succession duty imposed on land in these old burthens were removed upon 1853, it was expected to produce above the condition that land should for £2,000,000, but had never reached ever pay 48. in the pound upon the real one-half of that amount; and, surely, annual value. There was no mention that showed that the object with of nominal value. Real value was set which the tax was imposed had not down as plainly as the Act could make been realized, and that the rate ought it. But how did the landowners escape now to be increased. Under the circumfrom their engagements and the obliga- stances, he thought it a fair demand to tions imposed upon them? They valued ask for an equalization of the probate the land the year after the Act was and legacy duties. If the Government passed, and they had never valued it were not prepared to reduce the higher since, so that land now paid upon a duty to the lower, then let both be valuation made nearly 200 years ago-placed upon the same footing. Let each although they ought to pay 48. on the present real value, according to the bargain made with them when the feudal burdens were abolished. If this bargain were honestly carried out, few other taxes would be required. The analogy which the hon. Member for MR. J. G. HUBBARD thought the East Sussex endeavoured to show be- House was greatly indebted to the hon. tween bills of exchange stamps, and Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) stamp duties on land, did not exist; for a for the clear and able manner in which bill of exchange was really only a con- he had brought forward that important venient way of deferring the payment of subject. As to the probate duty, he did a debt owed from one man to another. not think that anybody would wish to The one thing desirable in relation to get rid of it, neither was it desirable to the probate duty was equalization. Take limit its operation merely to higher sums. an illustration. A man having saved It answered an essential purpose, form£1,000, leaves it by will to his son or ing, as it did, a title to the property to daughter-all, perhaps, he has in the be administered; and there was nothing world. The probate duty has to be paid, unjust in a poor man having to pay for and the deputy of the Chancellor of the his probate according to the value of the Exchequer goes to the party inheriting property which he obtained. He conthe money, and out of every 33 sove-curred in the demand made by the hon. reigns upon the table insists upon picking up one. On the other hand, a wealthy man dies, leaving £30,000 to his heir, and what happens? The deputy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of £1 in every £33, claims only £1 in every £66. Could that be fair, and was there any justice, or even common sense, in such an arrangement? Suppose the man with the £1,000 complained, and asked how that could be defended, what answer could be given? Only this-the He cordially supported the Member for the equalization of the probate duty through a fixed percentage. The numerous interesting points that presented themselves in connection with the discussion of this question showed that taxation was in a chaotic state, and that it required to be overhauled. He desired to impress upon the Government that they should never allow a tax to exist on false principles. A tax which was a charge upon property only at death was a very im perfect tax, and far inferior to a charge on the annual value of property. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his favourable attention to the subject whenever the finance of the succession and probate duty came before him. with difficulties, and he ventured to think Ayes 150; The House divided: LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) — THE GOVERNOR OF LIMERICK ASYLUM. MR. BUTT, who had a Notice on the "To call attention to the Order in Council re moving the Mayor of Limerick from the Go- and to move SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, that the inducement thrown out by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), that such a re-adjustment of these duties as he recommended would give an increase of £4,000,000 to the Revenue, would naturally recommend itself to one in the position which he had the honour to hold. But the proposal The before the House went very far. hon. Gentleman stated that the probate and succession duties ought to be readjusted, that the exemption of real property from probate duty ought not to be maintained, and that the succession But it had "That, in the opinion of this House, it is exduty was not a fair one. been argued before the House, by per-pedient in Orders in Council appointing Gosons of very great authority, that there vernors of Lunatic Asylums to observe the old was a substantial difference between real practice of appointing the Mayors of cities;" and personal property, and therefore that said, that he did not consider the subthere ought to be a difference in the ject one on which it would be necessary That was to put the House to the trouble of a duties charged upon them. argued by the right hon. Gentleman the division, even if the Rules would have Member for Greenwich when he intro- permitted him. It was, however, one duced the present measure, and the right in which a great deal of interest was hon. Gentleman had never since ex- taken in the city he had the honour to pressed any different opinion in reference represent. It was an illustration of a to this question. The right hon. Gen- form of government too common in Iretleman the Member for the University land, and which was most mischievous. of London had tried to re-adjust those It related to the removal of the mayor duties, but the attempt had not met and certain members from the places with a success which should encourage they had long occupied on the Governothers to follow his example, for he ing Body of the Limerick Lunatic withdrew his proposal. In considering Asylum. In 1821 an Act was passed the question, they must bear in mind under which that asylum was constithe local burdens which were a direct tuted; and the then Lord Lieutenant by charge on real property, and which handi- Order in Council, appointed certain percapped it as against personal property. sons to be governors of it; but there These local burdens and charges formed were to be four ex-officio governors one of the principal reasons why real property was not taxed the same as personal property, which did not bear the same burdens, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich had said that the charges upon real property made an imposition of this kind impossible. Another point raised in the Resolution was the difference of the amount raised upon small and large properties. There was no doubt that the amount levied upon smaller properties was a heavy one, and that it was one which required consideration; but it was a subject surrounded namely, the Mayor of Limerick, the Recorder of the City, the Bishop of the Established Church, and the Archdeacon, and so things continued till 1876; and then the Irish Church having been disestablished there came forth another Order in Council displacing all ex-officio governors, and, consequently, the Mayor of Limerick-and the Mayor of Cork was in the same position-was not allowed to take his seat at the Board of Governors. Even if it were necessary displace the Bishop and Archdeacon from the governorship of the Limerick to Asylum, because the Church was dis- fied-and thus remove the stigma which established, he could not understand had been cast upon municipal authoriwhy it was necessary to displace the ties. mayor. He considered that in this matter there had been a design to cast an unnecessary and undeserved slur upon municipal authorities and institutions in Ireland. Now, what he would ask of the present Lord Lieutenant, or those who represented him in that House-and he wished to say that he believed the present Lord Lieutenant had a sincere desire to conciliate the people of Ireland-whether something could not be done to remove the impression which prevailed? The Corporations, as the representatives of the people, contributed to the funds necessary for the maintenance of district lunatic asylums; and he saw no reason why the mayors, as the heads of such Corporations, should not be members of the Govern ing Boards. The principle upon which the government of Ireland had been conducted seemed to be to thwart the proper hopes and aspirations of the Irish people to have a part in the management of their own affairs, and it was this that he wished to see altered. This was a trifling thing, but it should be remembered that the lives of nations, like those of individuals, were made up of little things. From the year 1822, down to that of 1876, there was, in the person of the mayor, a representation of the ratepayers upon the Board of Governors; but under the Order in Council there was none, and he would urge that some independent person should be introduced. Why should they not wait for the passing of the County Government Bill before a matter of this kind took place, it might be urged? but he was unwilling to let matters remain until that measure had passed. If the principle were admitted, why not in the interval remove the evil of which they complained? To the County Boards there would be elected members, and he thought that the Corporations should be allowed to elect members to these Asylum Boards. As the matter stood, the people of Limerick complained that a slight had been thrown upon the office and dignity of the mayor, and upon the municipal authorities; and he hoped that something would be done to replace the mayor in the position which he formerly held on this Board-a position for which he was eminently quali VOL. CCXL. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. J. LOWTHER said, that he must first express, what he felt to be the general feeling which existed in the House, when he stated that he was glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman once more amongst them; and he was also glad to think that upon the first occasion on which it had fallen to his (Mr. Lowther's) lot to reply officially to any question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman that the difference between them was not one that would be very marked, or that would be difficult of arrangement. The hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention to an Order in Council under which mayors in Ireland were no longer constituted ex-officio governors of the lunatic asylums; but he (Mr. Lowther) would remind the House that in the Grand Jury Bill that question had been dealt with, and, as far as that measure was concerned, he might say, in order to show the spirit in which the Government had approached the subject, that twothirds of the governors of lunatic asylums were to be elected by Grand Juries, County Boards, and the Corporations which contributed to the maintenance of the district asylums. That provision would sweep away the system under which the Government appointed those governors, and introduce a new one; and, therefore, the Order in Council to which reference had been made would share the same fate. The Government recognized the importance of consulting the opinions of municipalities, and by vesting, as they proposed to do, the election of a considerable number of the Governors in the municipal corporations, they had shown, he thought, that they had respect for municipal institutions. There was a good deal to be said in support of the view taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he had hoped that the matter would be left until they had dealt with the Grand Jury Bill. As far as the Mayor of Limerick was concerned, he (Mr. Lowther) had not the pleasure of knowing anything personally of him, but from what he had heard he had no doubt that he was eminently qualified for the position he held; and if, upon inquiry, he found there was any particular grievance personal to himself in regard to the way in which that had been carried out, he would take an opportunity of consulting Y "That it is a high Breach of the Privileges of this House to obstruct the freedom and inde with the Lord Lieutenant and endeavour to rectify it. He (Mr. Lowther) regretted that the hon. and learned Gen-pendence of Members of Parliament in putting questions to Ministers, upon their responsibility as representatives of the people, and in the discharge of their public duty, such questions being framed in decorous language, and having for their object to elicit information on matters of public interest." tleman had been away from the House, because his assistance would have been very valuable in expediting the progress of the Grand Jury Bill; but that now he had returned, it was hoped that they would have the advantage of his help. So far as the Government were concerned, they would endeavour to remove any cause of complaint which might be supposed to exist. They certainly had no intention to vex the national spirit; but, on the other hand, every desire to act in a conciliatory spirit, with a view to the removal of any real grievance. MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the manner in which he had met his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt), and trusted it would form a precedent which he would follow in the conduct of the business of the important Office he held. He had to complain of the Order in Council, that it seemed to have been framed in a most bungling manner by some under official, who, having been credited with a discretion he never possessed, had naturally fallen into error in performing the duty. MR. MURPHY trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the precisely analogous case of the Mayor of Cork, and that in a like case a like rule would be adopted. Until the recent change in the Privy Council rates the Mayor of Cork was invariably an exofficio Governor, and as the Corporation of Cork had since the erection of the Asylum been regularly paying a considerable portion of the cost, they always had, and very properly, a representative on the Board. There ought to be no great difficulty in framing new rules for the object now required, and, if necessary, amending the existing Act, so as to confer power on the Lord Lieutenant to appoint some members of the Corporation as Governors, not for life, but during their term of office as town councillors. This was a matter, as it seemed to him, of the first importance, affecting, as it did, the Privileges of the Members of that House and so of their constituents, and the rights of the nation. He would briefly state the circumstances out of which his complaint arose. Some time in August, 1875, he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton Cross) with reference to one Mina Jury, one of the most important witnesses examined at the trial of the Tichborne Claimant. This Mina passed then as a very respectable witness, and was treated by the Judges with marked distinction. Her testimony had a powerful influence in deciding the case. After the conviction of that unfortunate man, it was discovered that Mina had been convicted of felony, under the name of Mercivina Caulfield, at Dublin, in 1847, and sentenced to be transported for seven years. She had come to this country under an entirely different name, and, after the trial at Bar, she was again tried for several felonies, and a second time sentenced to penal servitude for seven years. It was therefore thought advisable that the attention of the Crown should be drawn to the fact that one of the most important witnesses on whom the prosecution relied had been a convicted felon. He therefore asked the Home Secretary whether the Mina Jury produced at the trial was the same person who had been convicted in 1847 ? and the right hon. Gentleman, with much emphasis and earnestness, assured him that she was not an answer which drew down upon him (Dr. Kenealy) at the time much laughter and many sneers, which he bore with as much patience and philosophy as he could, as, indeed, he was obliged to bear many things. Some time afterwards, it appeared on the trial of the detectives, that special inquiries had been previously made into this matter; and that the antecedents of Mina Jury had been ascertained at Scotland Yard. In the month of September last, it was proved by Superintendent Williamson, at the "ARCHIBALD MILMAN. Old Bailey, that it had been discovered | tion; but no doubt you might bring the matter that Mina Jury and Mercivina Caulfield forward on a Motion.-Yours faithfully, were one and the same person. Under these circumstances, he should have thought that the Home Secretary would have been only too anxious to explain to To this he immediately replied— the House that he had been unconsciously led to make a statement in his place in Parliament which turned out to be incorrect, and that he would have seized the first opportunity to do so when Parliament was called together. This he was bound to do, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the Cabinet, and for that of the House of Commons itself, as it was no slight matter to mislead or misinform hon. Members upon such a question as that of the administration of justice. He (Dr. Kenealy) waited for this act during January and February and March; and, finding that the Home Secretary remained silent, in April he gave public Notice of the following Question to the Home Secretary : "Whether he will state to the House on whose authority he denied in his place in Parliament, on the 3rd of August, 1875, that Mina Jury, a witness against the defendant in the Tichborne case, and who is now in penal servitude for several robberies, was the same person as Mercivina Caulfield, who was sentenced to seven years' transportation for robbery in Dublin, in 1847; whether he does not know that it was proved at the trial of the detectives at the Old Bailey in September last, by Superintendent Williamson of Scotland Yard, that Mercivina Caulfield and Mina Jury were one and the same person, and that she had been convicted in Dublin as alleged; whether the person who gave him the false information by which Parliament was misled is still in the service of the Government, or receiving a pension; and, if he will state why he did not inform Parliament of the facts as soon as he became aware of them ?" Had there been any objection to the form of this Question, he would have thought that the proper time to raise that objection was when he gave Notice of it to the House, so that he might have an opportunity of amending any fault that might be shown. But that was not done. Early next morning, he received the following letter: "To Dr. Kenealy, M.P." "Stoke House, Tavistock Square, "Sir, I have had the honour to receive an intimation from Mr. Milman, one of the assistant clerks of the House of Commons, that you have ordered my Question to Mr. Cross not to be put on the Paper. With all submission, I think that the Question ought to be there, and I shall this day put the Question to Mr. Cross, in order that the matter may be fully discussed, ment of the House, which I shall move, if reeither as a Breach of Privilege or an Adjournquisite. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient Servant, "E. V. KENEALY." He wrote also to the Home Secretary thus "April 5th, 1878. "Sir, The Speaker having refused to put upon the Paper the Question of which I gave you public Notice last evening in the House of Commons, relative to the false information given to the House as to Mina Jury, I have informed the Speaker that I shall put the Question to you to-day, so that the Speaker's refusal may be discussed.-I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, "E. V. KENEALY." He He could assure the House that in framing his Question as he did, he had no desire to violate any Rule. thought at the time, and he thought still, that he had not done so, and that the Question was right and proper. After writing to the Speaker, he had carefully considered the Question of which he had given Notice; but, as it had been objected to by high authority, and as he had no desire for discussions, dissensions, or fights, he framed his Question anew, as follows: "On whose authority he (the Home Secretary) stated in his place in Parliament, on the 3rd of August, 1875, that Mina Jury, a witness against the defendant in the Tichborne case, and who is now in penal servitude for several robberies, was not the same person as Mercivina Caulfield, who was sentenced to seven years' transportation for robbery in Dublin in 1847; and whether the person who gave him the information is still in the service of the Government or receiving a "House of Commons, April 4th. pension; whether it was proved at the trial of the detectives at the Old Bailey in September "Dear Sir,-By the Speaker's order, I have last, by Superintendent Williamson, of Scotland not put your Question on the Paper, as it pur-Yard, that Mercivina Caulfield and Mina Jury ports rather to impugn the accuracy of certain information conveyed to the House than to seek information from the Government. The matter is, therefore, not properly the subject of a Ques were one and the same person, and that she had |