84. Sir Baldwyn Leighton said : I beg to second the resolution. I am not sure whether it is quite correct to take for granted that there is a general consensus in the House that this great relief should be given, and that there is only a question as to the mode and amount ; because we are placed in this peculiar position, that, while the present Government apparently agrees as to the general proposition, they take every opportunity of raising objections and indefinitely postponing it. I will, therefore, with the permission of the House, state the facts and figures, and then answer the objections that are made. But first I must ask the House to consider the exact position of the question and the reasons that have compelled my hon. friend and myself to bring this forward as an urgent question ; and I would ask the House to accord me its special indulgence to-night, for I do not often trespass on the time of the House, and on this question it is well known, I think, that I have some special knowledge and experience. (Hear, hear.) And if I am compelled, in order to make the matter quite clear to the House, to go into some little detail, I shall not do so more than is absolutely necessary to set forth the necessity of equitable relief coupled with administrative economy. (Hear, hear.) Now, I will not take the House back over the last 40 years of promises half fulfilled, of reports of committees and commiiaions, of statements and admissions of prominent members ou both a—beginning with Sir Robert Peel and ending with the present Prime Minister— all admitting this injustice and expressing themselves anxious to give relief. I will only ask the House to go back two years, and especially two months. Two years ago the Koyal Commission on Agriculture reported on this subject that all the cost of indoor poor, including lunatics, should be a charge on the general taxation of the country other than local rates. To show how moderate are our demands, I may say that my hon. friend and I should be content with relief to half that amount. A teelect Committee of the House of Lords had previously reported that the incidence of local taxa- tion for the roads was an unjust charge on one description of property. In 1882 a deputation went to the Prime Minister on the subject and received a favourable answer, and the relief of local taxation was put in the Speech from the Throne. I think it was omitted the next year, but on the debate and division the Government adopted an amendment saying that " a measure dealing with the whole question was urgently required." Three days after 31 members who had voted with the Government, and s.ived them from defeat, sent a memorial to the Prime Minister saying they had only voted with them on the understanding that the question was really going to be dealt with at once. Of course the Government whips laughed at the protest of hon. members. They had got their majority, though a narrow one, and protests did not count in practical politics ; but I shall be surprised if all of those 31 members can vote again for indefinite delay, and I know that the constituents of the hon. member for Herefordshire, who took the lead in that deputation, are regarding with the greatest interest the course hs will take to-night, after what has happened. Then we come to this year. A shadowy hope was expressed in the Speech from the Throne that after certain large and drastic measures had been disposed of something might be done, if there were time, for local government in the counties and local burdens ; and, in answer to a letter from the hon. member for Herefordshire, the Prime Minister rather emphasized the pro- posal — the shadow I think more than the hope — by saying that when the Government had time they would endeavour to bring in a BUI for the Reform of Local Government, " with which local taxation was connected." But we are not left without still more positive evidence of the shadowiness of this hope. The right hon baronet (the president of the Local Government) had the matter brought home to him by a deputation of his constituents at his private residence the other day, and he told them that whenever the Government had time they would set about the Reform of Local Government and give them — what ? "Why, nothing in relief. They would withdraw the subventions and give them some local licenses instead. Therefore, after waiting one, two, or three years, we are to get absolutely nothing ; at least, if it is any trifle, it would apparently go to the towns and not to the county ratepayers. That is the i^resent position of the question, and that is why the ratepayers feel that they are being juggled with, and will be juggled with no longer. (Hear, hear.) Now to come to facts and figures. I do not wish to pile up statistics or to overwhelm the case with figures. Rather. I would desire to limit the question as far as possible, and to place figures and facts before the House which shall carry conviction and conclusion to the minds even of those hon. members who may not have had time to devote to a full consideration of the subject ; and I can assure the House that I desire to under-state than to over-state the case. I would not for any consideration exaggerate or mislead the House in a matter of this kiud. The gross expenditure on local taxation is over £50,000,000, but it is only to about a quarter of that we desire to call attention to-night, namely, to some £12,000,000 cr £14,000,000 in England and ^Yales, expended under these items : Poor, Roads, Police, and Lunatics. These heads have been acknowledged by inspection and grant, as well as by reports of committees and commissioners, to be of national rather than local Importance, and, in addition to that, the charge under the statutes has always been on the general income of the place, and not on one description of property only. In fact, the present incidence of this taxation is an obsolete accident and a fiscal mistake, arising out of the fact that real property was more easily taxable than personalty. Now, I wish most distinctly to premise that, in advocating this relief, we are asking, not only for equitable taxation, but also for administrative economy. We are not asking that the whole of this £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 (and these figures are only for England and Walts, but, of course, we include Ireland and Scotland in relief) should be charged to the general income, as the statute directs in 43 Elizabeth, but that relief should be givreu by way of administrative economy of a quarter, or, at the most, a third of this amount, and I hope the House will realise the moderation of our demands. And the House will observe that these figures do not include education and public health, about wbich a Sood deal mure may be said. The figures of these charges are in round numbers these : maintenance of poor, £8,000,000, including lunatics ; main roads, about £1,000,000 ; police, about £2,000,000 ; Scotland and Ire- land, about £3,000,000 more. The general income of the country is estimated at about £1,200,000,000. The assess- ment to income tax is about £500,000,000 for Ensjland only, and £600,000,000 including Ireland and Scotland, but the property on which this expenditure is charged is only about £200,000,000, or about one-third of what is assessable to income tax, and less than one-sixth of the general income. Now, let us see the practical effect of this incidence — first in towns and then in rural places. The rates in towns are about 5s in the £, and it was well observed by the hon member for Cambridge (Mr Fowler) last year that the amount of taxation and increase in urban rates is conbiderably more than rural rates, though the exact incidence may be different. The reason why the question has not been so strongly taken up in urban places as yet is that there is this element of confusion and complication in towns, namely, that a large portion of the rate is paid for purely local purposes, or, in fact, for services rendered^ such as paving, lighting, sewerage, &c. ; and there is this further complication that, in some boroughs, water and gas, as belonging to the municipality, are charged as rates ; in others they are the charges of various companies. Now, I have been to some trouble to endeavour broadly to divide the purely local rates from national rates in towns, and think national purposes are three-fourths or four-fifths, that is to say, where (as on the average I reckon them) they are 5s in the £, about 4s in the £ are for national purposes. Now, takin» an average trades- man assessed for house and shop at £200 a year, he will be paying, at 5s in the £, £50 a year, and £40 a year for these national services. Then j)utting his income at £400 a year, which, I believe, is a fair estimate, he is paying a shilling income tax for thtse national services, which, compared with his wealthier neighbours, is quite out of proportion according to his ability. Then take the unskilled workman, who, for one or two roouis, is often paying some 43 to 53 a week. The rates are paid by the landlord, but charged in the rent, and cannot be put at less than Is per week. Assuming the average wage of this class is £1 a week, and taking the same ratio of four-fifths of the rates for national services, this labourer is paying an income tax of lOd for these objects, which, compared with his richer neighbours, is altogether out of proportion for his income. Ihis question of the rent of working class dwellings in large towns is becoming a serious one, and I am thankful to say the country is awakening to it, and the Government has appointed a Royal Commission to enquire into it. But it will be found that one of the chief diflficulties of the question — I might almost say the crux of the question — is that extra shilling a week. Philanthropic building societies find that they cannot supply these houses for less than that amount, after payment of rates and all outgoings, on any sound economic system, and the consequence of this is that respectable working men are compelled to herd with all their family into one room, instead of, as they ought, obtaining a minimum of two rooms for this amount of rent. Have hon. members ever seen and visited these places ? — rooms not much larger than twice the size of the table in front of you, sii-, in which, in the wealthiest city in the world, respectable working men are compelled to live with all their family. "What wonder if they are driven out to the public-house by this condition of things ? The question of the skilled labourer's dwelling, which he can afford to pay 6s or 7s a week for, is comparatively easy of solution, but the question of the poorer dwellings is greatly hindered by this system of taxation. The most philanthropic and best-managed companies cannot afford to let decent accomodation to the working classes as long as they are compelled to pay these rates, which entirely fall opt the working classes. Now, to come to the rural ratepayer, who is chiefly the tenant-farmer. I estimate the amount of this rate at 3s in the £, five-sixths of which is for national service according to the classification with which i started. The way I obtain this 3s in the £ is this : In his valuable work on Local Taxation, published some fifteen years ago, by the right hon. member for Kipon, the average rural rate comes to 2s 5d in the £. Since then disturnpiked roads and education and sanitary rates have added about 6d in the £. In many places a voluntary school is supported by subscriptions, which must be reckoned. There have been subventions and i-emissions amounting to some 10 per cent., or say 3d in the £ ; but there has been, to balance that, a fall in the value of the land to at least the same amount, namely, 10 per cent,, so that the average rate or charges may be set, I think, at 3s in the £, The right hon. gentleman said some short time ago that if relief was due then, it must unquestionably be far more required now, and at that time he proposed to give up the house tax, which now amounts to £1,800,000, so that I hope we may have his support to-night. Now, taking these rates at 3s. in the pound, the tenant farmer is paying a Gs. income-tax, because he is assessed at twice his income. If you say the rate falls entirely on the landlord he is paying 3s. income-tax ; if you divide it between the two and say the landowner is paying two-thirds, then they each pay a 2s. income-tax. This is manifestly out of all proportion to their ability as compared with other interests, especially considering the great depression of all agricultural property. But let me go a step further and show the exceeding anomalies which arise from this system of unjust taxation. Here are four parishes in one union, A, B, C, D. A. is an agricultural parish, assessed to the Income-tax at £30,000 a year. BCD are mineral, manufacturing, populous places, assessed to the Income-tax at exactly the same amount, namely, £30,000 a year each. But how are they assessed for purposes of local taxation ? Why, parish A is assessed on the full £30,000 ; while BCD are assessed at about one-third, and nearly all the pauperism, crime, and lunacy for which the rates are levied are produced by B, C, and D parishes. Surely it has been well said that the agri- cultural interest is like the i^astoral tribe Issachar, the strong ass crouching between two burdens — the burden of local and imperial taxation. (Hear, hear.) Then here ia another anomaly. A large farmer is rated we will say at £600 a year. His income is £300. His neighbour living in a villa with ten times his income, perhaps, is assessed on his villa at £50 a year. Now, for every penny in the pound of rates the farmer will pay Is., while the villa resident with ten times his income will pay Id. or one- twelfth. Surely, sir, these are anomalies that ought to be corrected, and corrected at once. But, now, there is another class besides purely urban or rural ratepayers that is most unfairly taxed under this system. I allude to the country clergy. They are not directly represented in this House, but I hope it is not going to be felt generally whafe has been lately said in private, that iier Majesty's Govern- ment will concede anything and everything to threats and big battalions, but will grant, nothing to truth and justice unless backed by such big battalions. H?re is a statement of a clergyman in one of the home counties, which will require no comment from me. "My tithe average i3 £325, nearly the whole of my iucome. I am assessed at £303 a year. The rates were, and I beg you to note the amount, for poor, highway, and School Board, £80 ; 6s., or over Ss. in the pound. The reverse picture is this : 1. A parishioner driving two carriages, four horses, and two carts, and enjoying an income of £4,000 a year, pays £25 yearly. 2. A Government clerk with £600 a year pays £11 33. 3. A tradesman turning over £7,000 a year and driving pony carriage, two carts, and two horses, pays £6 10s., and so on. As for the farmers the land cannot bear the burdens. One man failed, another threw up hia farm, and another cut his throat." Now, sir, if some of the anomalies I have instanced require immediate correction surely this outherods all. A struggling clergy- man on £300 a year is compelled to pay £80 a year for taxation for national services. You would not find such a system in any civilised country ; to find a parallel you must go to Turkey, or Egypt, or Asia Minor, where taxation has paralysed and destroyed all i:;dustry. Surely this is not only a perversion but an inverdon of the 43rd Elizabeth, where men are taxed not according to ability but according to inability. There is another element in this incidence, th^t is the great tendency to increase, which I have already referred to generally, but here are some returns taken at haphazard from four large agri- cultural parishes in my own county, and one farm in another county. They are ordinary agricultural parishes, and could not in any way be described as ever having been close parishes. The return is from 1866 to 1880 : — Parish A 1866. £. 335 ... 1880. £. 6£1 Pariah B Parish C 265 ... 710 ... ... 558 . , . 941 Parish D 950 ... . .. 1,022 U5 Farm E 20 ... Many farmers in these depressed times have paid the whole of their j^rofits in local rates. But, now, there is a collateral consideration that ought to weigh wioh hon. 10 members opposite. They profess, and I am sure sincerelj , to wish to see the purchase and ownership of land and houses made more easy and general. Then I trust they will help us to-night in trying to get each purchaser less unfairly taxed. A labouring man or artisan saves £200, which he invests at 3 per cent. He wants to buy a house and garden which we will assume is worth the same amount per annum, namely, £6 a year ; but the State in the form of the rate collector at once comes down on him and says, " You must pay me £1 out of that £6." Or take a retired tradesman who buys a villa and plot of land worth £60 a year. Why is he at once to be taxed to the amount of £10 as soon as his money is invested in this commodity which he did not pay before ? Tnat is the way in which purchase and owner- ship are encouraged in this country by this system. Or again, a man wants to improve his land— bay to drain a morass — and spends £10 an acre on land worth little or nothing before. The spectre of the rate collector at once appears and says, " True you have improved that land and made it worth Ss. or lOs. an acre, but you mast give me one-sixth of that improvement for national purposes. The other day, whilst this subject was being discussed at the Central Chamber of Agriculture, an American farmer who was present asked to be allowed to address the meeting, and expressed his immense astonishment at the taxation which the British farmer was subject to. An acre of wheat-producing land in England paying some 7s. an acre in tithes, taxes, and rates, which the same acre in America was only paying about as many pence, because the taxation there was levied fairly on all property, and not on one ddscription ; but he added significantly, " You have the remedy in your own power," and I believe, sir, we have. Then with regard to Scotland and Ireland, I am sure the House will not think I am unduly passing over any important item if I only glance at them. Three years ago a deputation of Scotch members went up to the Lord-Advocate, who advised them not to stir in the matter, as they were not heavily taxed. The deputation was im" portant enough for the Lord-Advocate to have his answer printed, and he kindly sent me a copy. I think, perhaps, it was not perceived by the Scotch members that a low rate in the £ on a high assessment does not necessarily mean low taxation. But what the Scotch say ia that they 11 would be satisfied if the large mercantile and commercial incomes that at present pay nothing were to contri- bute fairly. That is exactly what we say in England— it is because of the impracticability of applying such a principle locally that we urge the Government to make the assessment, and to contribute to the localities which they inspecb and order. Then, as regards Ireland, there are one or two points of special importance there as to the incidence of present rates. The police are paid by the State, but the county-cess— about Is. 6d. in the £— falls entirely on the tenant, and the poor rate is divided. It is about the same as the county-cess, or rather higher — some Is, 6d. or 2s. in the £. But in some of the "Western unions and the poorest the rates have lately been quite abnormally high — in some parts the amount is so ruinous that the Government has had to interfere and provide an Imperial rate in aid of 3s. or 4s. in the £, and this has been going on for some two or three years in the very poorest districts. No wonder the tenants are in distress when they are asked to pay a quarter of their income for these charges, and no wonder they refuse to become purchasers of their holdings under such circumstances, when the whole rate would fall on them. It amounted to positive confiscation, and the fear or possibility of such confiscating taxation falling on them is quite suflBcient to prevent any effect taking place by way of purchase and sale. If a man is liable to have to pay 10s. in the £ — and that is the actual rate in some places — how can any- thing induce him to become a purchaser ? And yet hon. members opposite, who profess to be so anxious to promote purchase and ownership, are going to vote against this moderate proposal to assist it to-night. I do not know whether the House is aware that in the Eastern Counties there are at present thousands of acres lying uncultivated, which anyone may have rent free, if they will only pay the tithes, rates, and taxes on them. Such a state of things has, I believe, never been seen before in this country. Now let us consider what are the objections to giving relief ; they come, I think, under three heads— 1, Hereditary burdens ; 2, That any change in the incidence will be a transfer of taxation from property to labour ; 3, Postponement to Local Government Reform and objection to subventions. I do not know to-night whether we are going to hear anything about hereditary 12 burdens or not. Well, the first time I had the opportunity of speaking on this subject in this House, I said, as I say again to-night, that all these so-called hereditary burdens that we ask to be removed have been laid on real property in my lifetime, and most of them within my recollection, and I am not an old member of this House. This can be demonstrated. Police and lunatics were made a charge between 1840 and 1845, during the time of the Corn Law. Public health, education, and turnpike roads were im- posed during the last ten or fifteen years ; the maintenance of the poor was a charge on the general income of the parish up to 1840, and so were the roads. Personalty was then exempted by annual suspension but aever by repeal, and meanwhile personalty and unrated property, together with population, have doubled, trebled, and quadrupled. But in addition to that, by the Union Assessment Act of 1865, these charges which were on the general income of each parish "according to ability" for the poor of that parish, is now a charge for the poor of a whole union, including unrated industries, charged solely on one des- cription of property. But, it may be said, real property may be too heavily burdened, but it has escaped from some taxation which it was formerly subject to. Now, I do not know if any member of this House is prepared to risk his financial reputation by adopting the views of the Liverpool Financial Almanac, and I am not sure if I could trespass on the time of the House by anticipating or com- bating arguments that may never be advanced and are untenable. But, I say, that not only has real property not escaped from any due taxation, but it is personalty q.hat has slipped out of this taxation, and I will just put these points shortly. First, the so-called Land Tax (4 William and Mary, cap, 1, 1692) was a general income-tax charged not only on income, but on chattels, that is, capital not producing income. Mr Broderick in his able work, published by the Cobden Club, says, at pp. 468— **The Act of 1692 was, in fact, an income-tax, with three modifications,'' and he goes on to explain them. He further says, "Personalty was taxed equally with land." Well, why is not personalty taxed equally with the land tax now ? Then, it is said, that the rate was 4s in the £. The assessment was taken absurdly low, so that the rate was made absurdly high, but since then later equivalents to about 3s in the £ have been piled upon real property as I have described, so that ifc is at present paying something 13 like 43 in the £ with income-tax and land tax for national service, contrary to the intention of these statutes. Therefore, to carry out the Act of 1692, you should im- pose an income-tax of 03 6d on all personal income, and that is a suggestion I make a present of to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the forthcoming Budget. (Hear^ hear.) Then it is said that there were certain military services chargeii on land ; a sort of militia was provided, but they were paid for their service and anything that could be a charge would be more than represented in the £2,000,000 of land tax still charged. But I again turn to the Cobden Club for information. It says, "Clearly the nation cannot even pretend to claim anything, but a contribution bearing the same proportion to the present national income as the revenue from the Court of "Wards bore to the national income, say in 1643," and, again, "The land tax was probably an eflfective substitute in the seventeenth century for the profits of the feudal tenures," and then this writer of the Cobden Club adds, "The statements of the almanac (that is the Liverpool Financial Almanac) are utterly misleading." But if we are to go into archaic taxation and finance, we must look further. We must ask about the origin of alienated tithes, and enqv.ire why land that paid tithe partly for the poor is now asked to contribute doubly by way of poor rate? Also, we must enquire why the expense of public prosecu- tions are charged on private individuals, as landowners, who are sheriffs, se* ing that the oflSce was formerly one of profit ? We mu^t ask why Schedule A on land is charged on the gross (on profits namely that are never received), while all the other schedules are charged upon the net, making the difference, as Sir Eobert Peel stated, of nearly 50 per cent, as against real property. So that, in addition to the injustice of rates which was distinctly charged or general income and on personalty, we have these four cases — land-tax, tithes, public prosecutions, and schedule A of income-tax, in which personalty is unduly exempted at the expense of real property. Wtll, then, the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated, I think in this House, but c^ rtainly to his con- stituents at Birmingham, that "any relief to local taxa- tion would be a tranference of taxation from property to labour." Sir, I entirely deny and traverse that statement. 14 Why, surely in the first place it will depend on how the transfer is effected ? Suppose a sum of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 were so relieved and it were raised by an income-tax, would that be a transference to labour? Or supposing you went a step further and transfrrred it to a fitraduated income-tax, as proposed by the hon. member for Northampton, would that be a tax upon labour ? Or if it were transferred to a staiup duty on transfer of property which has been always held by political economists to be essentially a tax on property, would that be a tax on labour? Sir, this proposioiou will not hold water for one moment. It is one of those bald superficial statements utterly untenable. But I go a great deal further than that. I say the tax at present is on labour. Is the tradesman and farmer working hard with head and hands ten hours a day not being taxed on his labour ? Is the hard-worked clergyman paying a quarter of his wretched stipend in this taxation not being taxed on hia labour? Are the working classes in our towns who have to pay 20 per cent, more for their house rent by these rates not being taxed on their labour ? Is the Irish cotter of the West of Ireland paying a quarter of his wretched income in this taxation not being taxed on his labour ? The right hon. gentleman even went so far as to say that to give any relief to the overburdened ratepayer would be to quarter the landlord on the stale. It is the com- mercial interest that Jias already quartered itself on the labour of the country, and now endeavours to conceal the fact by raising a false issue. It is personalty and monied wealth that has been exempted, not land and houses. To make such a statement, the right hon. gentleman must either have failed to comprehend the bearings of a very simple fiscal question, or else he has for party purposes made a statement wholly unworthy of his reputation. But I do not ask the House to take my statement of these facts. Here is the case put in a nutshell, in better words than I can put them, by the hon. member for Car- narvon (Mr Rathboue), formerly member for Liverpool, who has a right to be heard on this question. It is well known that the hon. member has given special attention to this subject, and also has great practical exptrience of this question in Liverpool. The hon. member also occupies a high place in the commercial world, and this is what he says :— " The principal wealth of our large towns con- 15 sisted of commercial, manufacturing, and trading interests ; but, except incidentally, none of these interests contributed to the poor-rate, and the more their wealth had increased the more they had escaped fr.iin anything like a legitimate amount of contribution to the support of the poor. They did not pay on their capital, because that capital, consisting mostly of personalty, was not subject to local taxation." Now I pray the House specially to attend to this last part, "Merchants who had made the calculation informed him that the proportion of their income derived from trade on which they paid poor-rate amounted to only from one-half to two per cent., while the proportion of their income on which labourers in the employment of those merchants paid poor-rate was 3i per cent. From this it appears that the proportion in which persons paid in large towns was in almost inverse ratio to their wealth. Upon the class of small tradesmen the Door-rate operated most oppressively, and with especial severity upon those who were in the humblest circumstances. It might be said that it was foolish for the mercantile community to be active in promoting a change of system ; but the mercantile community were not foolish or shortsighted enough to believe that a system could be good which transferred a considerable portion of the burden of taxadon from their shoulders to those of the very poor." Those are not my words, but the words of a geutleman with a high position in the commercial world. Let the right hon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, upset those arguments and statements if he can. Since these arguments of the right hon. gentle- man (Mr Chamberlain) have been put forward, I have been at some pains to enquire what was the exact inci- dence of this taxation on the different classes, and I must say that the results have been rather startlicg. The law of the 43 Elizabeth under which we are levying this taxation expressly states that it is to be paid according to ability. The conditions under which we are actually living appears to be an exact inversion of that principle, and we are paying according to our inability, thus : The highest- rated class is the poverty-stricken cottier of the West of of Ireland, who is paying in many places 25 per cent, of his income. The next highest rated in proportion is the unskilled workman in large towns, who has to pay 25 per cent, more for house rent. Aiter that the large middle- 16 classes who are excused income-tax, or who pay under remission, and who are taxed at the rate of Is 6d to 2s in the pound on income, namely, the small tradesman and the struggling farmer. The capitalist in land pays 2s in the pound on the statistical assumption that he pays two-thirds of agricultural rates ; and the raonied, or manufacturing capitalist, pays a f i action of a penny, or in some cases the fraction of a farthing. So now we come to the last argument, namely, postponement till after something has been done with Local Government. We are to wait for one, two, or three years when the subven- tions are to be taken away and some local license given in their place, which will probably be of no effect whatever in making a reduction. But there is to be reform of Local Government that is to do wonders. How ? How, in the first place, is ib in any way to affect the rates in towns which are the principal sum ? How is it to affect the poor-rate and road-rate which are now administered by elected bodies ? The amount of county rate is quite insignificant even if you reduced it by half, and you will probably increase it by any change. Oh, but you will divide the rate between landlord and tenant. "Well, that's no relief whatever, and how will that touch the clergyman who is his own landlord, or the compound householder in towns ? How are you to do that with leaseholds in town, especially beneficiary leaseholds where a capital sum is paid down ? Then, if you divide the rate you must divide the representation, and begin by pulling to pieces the constitution of all your local bodies. But we propose to extend the incidence of certain charges such as in-door poor to county areas. Then how about boroughs ? Half the Union include a borough, which is not assessed to the county rate. You must have a new assessment area, and a new valuation. I do not greatly envy the post of a Minister who is going to re-adjust county and Union boundaries— he will find himself in a veritable tower of Babel— but the Minister who is going to pull down and attempt to reconstitute all our local authorities, some 2,000, or 3,000 on these sort of lines, should be the mem- ber for Bedlam. (Hear, hear.) These proposals are either made in theoretical ignorance, or they are mere pretexts for postponement. But it is said that subventions are 17 extravagant and wasteful. According to the ofScial figurea, that is mosb positively not the case. The figures prove rather the contrary, and the facts still more so, as I will show ; ba^, I say at oaco, I am in favour of strict administrative economy, and though equitable relief is required, I will support no proposal that, in my opinion • is not in the direction of economic administration. "Will anyone say that the subventions for education are wasteful ? No, Will anyone say that the people could have been edacated without them ? No. Then, as to police and lunatics, the subventions given by the late Government, which have been so greatly cavilled at, I will not say what has been often urged, that it is only because they were given by the late Government, th it that charge is made, b ut I say it is unfounded. As regards the police, the right hon. baronet, the President of the Local Government Board, quoted figures last year in this House, which proved exactly the contrary to what he stated, namely, that since the subventions the proportion of increase had been greater than before. I have been told that since then he has acknowledged his mistake, but all through the debate he clung to this fallacy, so that we must take any of his statements with reserve and cum grano. Then, as regards the lunatics, a great mistake is made in supposing that the grant of 43 per head per week can be a pecuniary inducement to Boards of Guardians to send paupers to an asylum. It costs them more, with the 43 grant, to maintain them in the asylum than the workhouse — almost double. The reason of the increase is, I believe, the effects of intemperance, promoted by the high prices of ten years ago, and, possibly, from the facilities introduced by the present Prime Minister in the grocers' licenses. But let us see what the right hon. baronet himself says, in answer to his own assertion of last year. Last year he says : — "Tae figures bearing on lunatics were also before him, and he should almost [ go so far as to state that many lunatics had been invented since the establish- ment of the subvention." Now, let us appeal from Philip Drunk to Piiilip Sober, and see what the right hon. baronet says in his official report pub- lished a few months ago :— " It has been suggested that the increase of late years in the number of pauper lunatics in asylum3 and licensed houses is due to a coaaiderable 18 extent to the effect of the Government subvention of 4a, a week for paupers in these establishments, and that the subvention has induced Boards of Guardians in many cases to send to asylums paupers who might be sufiSciently cared for at a less expense in the \Norkhouse. It will, however, be observed from the above table that the in- crease in question has been accompanied by a considerable increase in the number of pauper lunatics in workhouses. ... In January, 1874, the number of insane paupers chargeable to the poor rate in asylums and licensed houses was 31,024, and the number in workhouses 15,018. In Jan., 1882, these numbers had respectively increased to 42,230 and 16,976. The increase in the number of insane paupers was 13 per cent. . , In 76 of the unions in England and Wales the number of these lunatics was the same in the two years, while in 314 there was an increase, and in 259 only a decrease." I have nothing to add to that except that it is signed by the right hon. baronet himself, and I think it will be more satisfactory that he should contradict himself in his own words than that I should do so. But, Sir, I go a great deal further than that. I say that the power to order the expenditure without the responsibility of having to pay for it is a cause of extravagance and waste, and gross in- justice to the ratepayers, and I could give half a dozen instances that have happened in my own immediate neighbourhood. Some few years ago the Government Inspector came down and ordered the magistrates of my county to increase the number of police ; it was in vain they asked on what principle, and pointed to the absence of crime, and especially of undetected crime. A conten- tion took place, and the Government grant was refused. A compromise of some sort was at length come to, and some third or half of the number asked were added to the force. Again, in two or three parishes the Government Inspector came down a few years ago and ordered new schools to be built a mile or so off the old schools, which would have necessitated a great expense — a School Board probably, and the destruction or waste of the existing schools, which were thoroughly efficient and undei Government inspection. In one case the provisional notice was actually put on the church door. After considerable correspondence the inspector of the Education Board was induced to see 19 the unreasonableness of his demand, and it was given up in each case. Again, the Lunacy Commissioners ordered the Asylum Authorities to purchase more land than they required, and refused to pass the plan for some addi- tional buildings until they did so. They appealed to the present Home Secretary who, I am glad to say, sup- ported the county magistrates, and it was not insisted on, I could give the House some other cases, but I want to know would the Government have attempted to force this unnecessary expenditure on the local bodies if they had had to pay for it ? I am certain they would not. But now if in one district all these attempts at extravagance were going on, there must be hundreds and thousands of such cases over all England, and in too many they have succeeded. So much for subventions being extravagant- It is on the ground of economy that I ask for them. But the money should be given, I think, on a three years' average, so that every penny the Local Authority can save goes to them, aaJ not be shared. I am opposed to any extravagance and waste whatever. (Hear, hear.) There miy be difference of opinion as to the best mode of providing and dispensing this relief, into which therefore I will not go now, sufficient for to-night is the burden of local taxation. If we are to di>cuss ways and means, we shall have to go into the questions of expenditure and policy, If hich will become controversial and lead us far asvay from our subject. We shall have to ask what has become of the money raised by the increased probate duties and the increased beer duty. We shall ha\e to ask why the terminable annuities were applied to the reduction of debt last year, and why the present Govern- ment are spending some £2,000,000 more in Ireland and Egypt than the late Government. We shall have to ask why the Chancell